The Real Reason Big Meetings Suck
There’s a tendency at work to believe that adding more people to meetings leads to better information sharing and thereby better decision-making.
This, however, is rarely how it works.
Meetings aren't always an effective medium for communication. For most meetings, there’s no agenda, structure, or useful takeaways. What’s worse, the medium of meetings changes the message—especially in the case of big meetings.
The problem with big meetings is the same as that of big teams. As Harvard Professor Chris Argyris describes, strong teams communicate in two ways: 1) through Advocacy, which involves making an argument, and 2) through Inquiry, which involves asking questions to gain clarity.
Inquiry is generally a more effective communication method because asking questions and challenging assumptions leads to better problem-solving. Unfortunately, big meetings rarely allow for inquiry.
When there are too many people in a meeting (say, more than 5-7 people), given the limited floor time, people communicate by advocating rather than inquiring. They do this because they want to make an impact but know they’re unlikely to get to talk again.
Where have we seen this dynamic play out before? In our political institutions—which are uniquely dysfunctional. With so many congressmen, senators, and stakeholders, and so little floor time, when these people get an opportunity to speak they advocate for their causes, sometimes even using the filibuster to make their case.
Over time, big meetings create a culture where the loudest voices are heard regardless of their merit. This can culminate in tension within teams, leading to indecision, lack of clarity around impact, and harm to company morale.
You can measure the health of an organization by the number of big meetings it has.
To drive impact and make the most out of meetings, keep meetings small (<5-7 people). This promotes psychological safety and facilitates open, constructive conversation.