Companies with broken meeting structures start pretending to make decisions

The collapse of meetings

The meeting is over.
Yet, nothing has changed.

When that feeling persists, the problem is not the number of meetings.

The meeting structure is broken.

I previously wrote an article titled 'Meetings | Companies with too many meetings usually haven't decided anything'.

In that article, I described the symptoms of a company that isn't moving forward despite an increase in meetings.

You can find that article here

This time, I am going one step deeper.

The problem is not the meetings themselves.
It is the design of the meeting structure.

It was 'decided,' but nothing moves

Do you have any situations that come to mind?

We were supposed to be talking about missing sales targets, but halfway through, it turned into a discussion about product improvements.

We were supposed to be checking on hiring delays, but it ended with 'let's coordinate within each department'.

We were supposed to be prioritizing new initiatives, but it ended with 'let's gather a bit more information'.

No one is objecting.
But no one is taking responsibility.
The same agenda item comes up again the following week.

These kinds of meetings quietly increase within a company.

'I will take this back for now'
'I will check with the relevant parties'
'We are in agreement on the direction'

When these phrases start to increase, the company is in serious trouble.

The pretense of making decisions has begun.

This is not because the participants have low awareness.

It is because the design of the meeting structure is broken.

--

A meeting structure is the wiring for decision-making

A meeting structure is not just a list of recurring meetings on a calendar.

It is the wiring for a company's decision-making.

Where do you identify anomalies?
Where do you break down causes?
Where do you make judgments?
Where do you finalize responsibilities?
Where do you check execution status?
Where do you make corrections?

When this wiring is cut, even if information exists, it does not lead to decisions.

Even if issues are visible, they do not translate into execution.
Even if there is a sense of crisis, no one moves.

Even though anomalies appear in field meetings, they do not reach management meetings.
Even though policies are decided in management meetings, they do not translate into actions on the ground.
Even though issues are raised in project meetings, it is unclear who decides.
Even if consulted in departmental meetings, things stop when the issue crosses departmental lines.

In companies where meetings exist but nothing progresses, this wiring is usually cut.

When functions are mixed, all meetings become lost

In many companies, meeting structures are managed as a 'list of recurring meetings'.

Sales meeting on Monday.
Management meeting on Tuesday.
Business meeting on Wednesday.
Progress check on Friday.

The schedule is organized.
However, the functions are not organized.

What is the purpose of that meeting?

Is it a place to report?
Is it a place to consult?
Is it a place to decide?
Is it a place to look at gaps in execution?

If you increase the number of meetings while this remains ambiguous, everything becomes half-baked.

What should be a reporting meeting veers off into a discussion of policy.
What should be a decision-making meeting ends with nothing but information sharing.
What should be a progress check meeting has no one holding a deadline.

People feel relieved just by talking.
People feel like they have moved forward just by sharing.
It looks like an agreement was reached, but no one has taken any action.

In companies where meeting structures are broken, meetings become places to dilute responsibility rather than places to establish it.

--

Divide meeting functions into at least four types

Organizing meeting structures does not mean reducing the number of meetings.
The first thing to do is to separate their functions.

Decision-making meetings

Decide who will do what and by when.
Separate decided items from undecided items.
Do not end with 'we agree on the direction'.

Meetings to identify gaps

Look at the differences between plans and reality for sales, hiring, initiatives, and customer support.
Make it a place to discover anomalies early, not a place to assign blame.

Execution follow-up meetings

Check if what was decided is actually moving forward.
Do not revert to policy discussions; confirm tasks, deadlines, owners, and obstacles.
If things are not moving, break them down on the spot.

Exception handling meetings

Escalate issues that cross departments, have ambiguous areas of responsibility, or cannot be judged at the front line.
Do not let people hold onto them; connect them to management decisions.

In companies where these four things are mixed together, every meeting ends up getting lost.

In a lost meeting, the opinions of
the loudest person, the person in the strongest position, or the person who spoke last
tend to prevail.

That is not decision-making.
It is just giving in to the flow of the meeting.

--

What is still missing even after organizing the meeting structure

Even after organizing things this far, one more problem remains.

Even if you build the box, someone has to design what is decided inside it.

Meetings need an exit.

Does it end with sharing information?
Does it end with a decision?
Does it end with assigning responsibilities and deadlines?

Meetings that start without deciding on this exit usually end with the same words.

I will take this back.
I will check.
I will organize this.

Taking things back is not bad in itself.
The problem is that it is unclear what is being taken back.

It is unclear who is checking.

As a result, the same topic is discussed again next time.

--

When the meeting structure is organized, vague language decreases

When the meeting structure begins to function, vague language disappears.

You cannot end with just 'I will consider it.'
You cannot overuse 'I will take this back.'
You cannot stop at 'I will wait and see.'

Who decides?
What is being decided?
By when will it be done?
If the target is not met, where will it be corrected?

Only when these are decided does a meeting connect to execution.

In companies where the meeting structure is broken, there is a void between decision and execution.

Management thinks they have decided.
Managers think they have communicated.
The front line thinks they have heard.

But no one takes responsibility and acts.

A company where these 'assumptions' pile up will quietly grind to a halt.

And then, only the numbers will lag and deteriorate.

--

A standard you can use tomorrow

When looking at a meeting structure, try asking this question.

After that meeting ends, what has changed in the company?

If only information has increased, it is a sharing session.
If only the points of discussion have been organized, it is a consultation session.
If the person responsible and the deadline have been decided, it is a meeting that connects to execution.
If a management decision has been made, it is a decision-making meeting.

It is not about which is good or bad.

The problem is calling everything a 'meeting' without understanding the difference.

When the meeting structure breaks, the company starts pretending to make decisions.
When the pretense of deciding continues, the front line starts pretending to act.
When the pretense of acting continues, only the numbers quietly deteriorate.

There are many meetings, but nothing moves forward.
The same agenda items come up repeatedly.
Even though it should have been decided, the front line is not moving.

If you feel that sense of discomfort, look at the function of the meeting structure before looking at the number of meetings.
However, just fixing the meeting structure is not enough.

Meetings need someone to drive them toward a decision.

Someone to narrow down the points.
Someone to bring the conversation back on track.
Someone to turn vague agreements into actions on the spot.
Someone to distinguish between 'is this a decision or a consultation?'

Next, I will write about that person.

They are not the person who facilitates the meeting.
They are the person who makes the meeting decide.

Companies where meetings don't lead to decisions usually don't lack a facilitator.
They lack someone who prevents people from escaping the decision.

In this article I wrote previously, I describe the symptoms that occur in companies where meetings increase.

"Meetings | Companies where meetings have increased usually haven't decided anything"

There are many meetings, yet the company makes no progress.

If you feel that something is wrong, I would be happy if you could like or follow me.

Next time, I will continue to write about the structures that cause companies to get stuck, using the language of the workplace.