Meetings & Interruption

Why do large companies have so many meetings?

I think it has something to do with a movements from hierarchical organisation to network organisation, and (clumsy) efforts to maintain monitoring because incentive structures have become anachronistic. Let me explain. Here are some excellent comments from the team at 37 signals.

• interruption is being mistaken for collaboration
• There’s no such thing as the one-hour meeting
• The alone zone is where real progress is made

Comments

[Johannes B]

Just a thought on the quoted source of 37 signals:

http://37signals.com/svn/archives2/meetings_considered_harmful.php

"So don’t do meetings. There’s usually a more appropriate way to convey information or query for participation."

Meetings do not only serve the pupose of conveying information. There's an important motivational component to meetings. If you have too little meetings, for example to review the progress of a project, people lose motivation and progress slows down. The motivational effect that comes from your colleagues or bosses recognising the progress you made in front of others should not be underestimated. Therefore, meetings should be held regularly. This form of motivation, as well as getting a sense of what others are working on and what is important, can best be achieved with meetings.

However, I agree that most meetings are held in an inefficient way and that many meetings are unnecessary.
Still, the conclusion to "not do meetings" is very wrong.

And another thought: do big companies really have more meetings than small ones? It's just a personal observation but I've been working in both, big and small companies and I feel there are more meetings in the small company...