Meetings | Meetings that don't reach a decision aren't a matter of time. The agenda design is wrong.

Meetings

It is not that meetings are long because they don't reach a decision.
Meetings become long because you are bringing an agenda that cannot be decided.

There is nothing wrong with a one-hour meeting.
The problem is not that there are too many participants.
Having too many documents is not the only cause either.

What is truly dangerous is,

mixing things that should be shared with things that should be decided.
not having clear points of discussion.
the ambiguity of who is deciding what in that setting.

It is running a meeting while in that state.

In a company during a crisis, meetings increase.
That is to be expected.

The points of discussion increase.
Exceptions also increase.
Verification also becomes necessary.

However, if you design the meeting incorrectly at this time, the company will suddenly slow down.

You are gathered.
You are talking.
You are looking at the documents.
Yet, nothing is moving forward.

This state is not merely inefficient.
It is a suspension of management.

The theme this time is that kind of meeting.

In the previous article, I wrote that organizations that try to do everything when resources are scarce end up doing everything halfway.

Click here for the previous article

Selection is necessary during a crisis

If you do not decide what to protect, what to stop, and what to bet on, the organization will thin out and collapse.

This is true.

However, even if they know that selection is necessary, there are companies that cannot actually decide that in a meeting.

The issues are visible.
The priorities must also be changed.

Yet, even after repeated meetings, nothing is decided.
Every time, it ends with 'We were able to organize things today.'
The following week, the same issues come up again.

Companies like this question the meeting duration.

Should they be shorter?
Should the number of participants be reduced?
Should the materials be reduced?
Of course, those things are partially effective.

But that is not the essence of the problem.

The cause of meetings that don't reach decisions is not time.
It is the agenda design.

Situation

There is a common scene in companies.

Sales are slowing down.
Retention rates are also starting to drop.
Gross margins are poor.
There is no leeway in funds either.

So, a management meeting is held.
Items like these are lined up on the agenda.

Sharing current sales progress.
Confirming the status of key clients.
Reviewing low-margin projects.
Confirming hiring status.
Sharing cash flow.
Changing priorities for development projects.
Reporting on exception handling.

All of these are important.
That is why they try to cover everything in the meeting.

Then what happens?

The first half ends with sharing numbers.
In the middle, it enters into individual client discussions.
In that flow, the conversation jumps to the details of sales proposals.
Next, the topic of hiring comes up.
From the topic of hiring, it expands to the burden on the organization.
Finally, it ends with 'We don't have time today, so let's revisit development priorities next time.'

It looks like the meeting is functioning.

Everyone is speaking.
Information is being presented.
There are many points of discussion.

But the crucial things have not been decided.

When returning to the field, it is even more problematic.

This is because it is ambiguous what was decided in the meeting.

Many things were shared.
A sense of crisis was also shared.

But what to change has not been decided.
As a result, the actions in the field do not change.

This is not a problem of the quality of the participants.
Nor is it just about the skill of the facilitation.

It is a failure of agenda design.

--

The Problem

Meetings that don't reach decisions have one thing in common.
That is, the purpose of the meeting is not narrowed down to one thing.

Is it a place for information sharing?
Is it a place for decision-making?
Is it a place for progress checks?
Is it a place for removing bottlenecks?

These are all mixed together.
Originally, these four have different roles.

Information sharing is for aligning understanding.
Decision-making is for setting priorities.
Progress checks are for grasping the status of advancement.
Removing bottlenecks is for eliminating specific obstacles.

However, in many companies, all of these are put into a single meeting.
As a result, the meeting inevitably becomes ambiguous.

Time runs out while sharing information.
When trying to make a decision, confirmation of premises begins.
While checking progress, the discussion sinks into individual cases.

In the end, it becomes, 'We organized things, but couldn't reach a decision.'

This is dangerous.

A meeting that doesn't reach a decision is not just a waste of time.
It is a structure that keeps the team running without being able to set priorities.

Moreover, as meetings increase, the burden on the team also increases.

Creating materials.
Compiling numbers.
Attending.
Reporting.
Confirming.

Even though this cost is being paid, no decisions are made.
If that continues, the team learns.

'Only information is shared in this meeting.'
'In the end, it's just taken back for further review.'
'If that's the case, there's little point in working hard before the meeting.'

They think this.

Once it reaches this point, the meeting is no longer a place for decision-making,
but a place that increases organizational resignation.

--

Judgment, Management, and Execution

So, how should a meeting be designed?

First, what is needed for judgment is to
be able to state in one sentence what is to be decided in this meeting.

For example,

“A meeting to decide what to prioritize and protect this month”
“A meeting to decide whether to continue low-margin projects”
“A meeting to assign responsibility for the top 10 key clients”
“A meeting to narrow down development interruption rules to three exceptional conditions”

Meetings that cannot be stated this clearly usually don't reach decisions.
This is because it is ambiguous what the meeting is for.

Next, what is needed for management is to
separate the agenda into 'sharing' and 'deciding'.

Things that should be shared should, in principle, be sent out in advance.
In the meeting, focus on what needs to be decided based on the shared premises.

If it takes time to share premises, then the materials are poor or the points of discussion are not clearly defined.

Furthermore, the agenda needs to be set in 'decision units' rather than 'broad themes'.

“Regarding sales recovery” is too broad.
Narrow it down to “How to handle low-margin projects starting next month”.

“Regarding customer support” is too broad.
Narrow it down to “What criteria to use to define key clients”.

If the agenda is too large, the meeting will always end with just organizing information.

And what is needed for execution is,

at the end of the meeting, to leave behind one thing decided and one thing changed.

What was decided?
What will be stopped?
Who is responsible?
Where will it be reviewed next?

If it hasn't been broken down to this level, the meeting will end with just 'having talked'.

What is needed in a crisis meeting is not a sense of consensus.
It is a decision to move forward.

--

Result

A meeting with a proper agenda design moves forward, regardless of whether it is short or long.

Sharing ends quickly.
You can focus on the points that need to be decided.
Participants also know why they are there.
When they return to the field, their priorities change.
They also understand what to stop doing.

That is why the organization's movements change after the meeting.
This is significant.

In a crisis, the meaning of a meeting is not in holding the session itself.
The meaning lies in the fact that the actions on the ground change after the meeting.

Conversely, in a meeting with poor agenda design, you see the same scene no matter how many times you hold it.

Share the numbers.
Explain the situation.
Align on the awareness of the problem.

But nothing is decided.
The same topic comes up again the following week.

As a result, the organization's speed slows down.

Because nothing is decided, the field continues with the old ways of doing things.
Because they continue, the numbers do not change.
Because the numbers do not change, the number of meetings increases again.

Once you enter this cycle, the company remains busy but comes to a standstill.

What makes the difference in a crisis is not the number of meetings.
It is whether the meeting turns into a decision.

--

Structural Explanation

Why do meetings slow down management to this extent?
The reason is that meetings are the connection point of management.

Information from the field is brought up.
Management figures are collected.
Management decisions are made.
Roles are assigned.
Priorities are determined.

Originally, a meeting is a place where such connections occur.
Therefore, if the design is poor, the connection itself breaks.

If it ends with just sharing, it does not lead to judgment.
Even if a judgment is made, if roles are not assigned, it does not lead to execution.
If execution is blocked and cannot be removed in the meeting, it just leads back to the field.

In other words

A meeting is not just a place for communication.

It is a mechanism that connects decision-making, management, and execution.

This also connects to the selection process from the previous article.

Companies that cannot make selections bring everything into meetings.
Because they bring everything in, nothing can be cut.
Because nothing can be cut, the front lines become confused.
Because they are confused, meetings increase even further.

Reducing meetings is not the essence.
Correctly cutting the agenda is the essence.

--

Conclusion

An indecisive meeting is not a matter of time.
The agenda design is wrong.

What is needed in crisis management is not gathering a lot of information.
What should be shared, what should be decided, and what should be changed in this space?
It is about separating the roles for each meeting.

If meetings are designed correctly, the company moves.
If meetings are ambiguous, the front lines get tired.

In other words, a meeting is not just an operational technique. It is the structure that determines the speed of management.

In the next article, I will deal with coordination, which is the root cause of why things decided in these meetings fail to align on the front lines.

It is a story about how the walls between departments are created by information asymmetry, not by bad relationships.

If this article resonates with you, please save it with a like so you can look back on it later.

In this series, I will verbalize crisis management from the perspective of a 'CEO's right-hand person,' divided into symptoms, judgment, management, and execution. If you want to follow the rest, please follow me.

The last word that should remain is: meeting.