Do We Really Make Decisions in Meetings?
Meetings aren’t where decisions live; they’re a tool for perspective. Waiting for the right meeting, or being disappointed when the decision isn’t made in the meeting but there is no straightforward process for how the decision will be made (leaving it in limbo), is an example of unpredictable cadence.
Unpredictable cadence tends to result in unintended consequences. Here are some examples. Context-dependent, you may observe ‘endorsement shopping’ (selectively seeking input and approval to avoid challenge). An alternative common outcome is… that…. Things… Just…. Grind…. To… A…. Stop. Losing all momentum and ripeness for change.
Fixing this isn’t about adding bureaucracy. The best systems are felt and experienced, not over-documented. Start with rhythm: a simple, predictable sequence that governs how you plan, decide, and learn.
This may be a controversial point, but I wanted to bring it to your attention. Boards seek to make decisions based on consensus; Management teams should not. Always remember that the meeting itself is not the decision-maker; rather, it is the individual. How do you want to use a meeting to enable better decisions? Is it a time-boxed opportunity for gathering input and different perspectives, or is it to move beyond the decision into clarifying the steps necessary to implement it?
Most decisions are tactical and of low materiality (i.e., the consequences of making a wrong or right decision are minimal), so a meeting is not necessary for the decision to be made. Bringing issues like this to meetings is often more about the theatre than value or risk management.
Others may be significant enough to use the meeting for perspective taking, but a better decision may be made with a time-boxed window after the meeting for the final decision.
There will be a sweet spot in between where a meeting is the best place to decide, but that is less common than we realise.
What matters is finding what works for your team as a pattern of:
Ideation > Perspective-taking > Recommendation > Decide > Communicate > Perform > Learn.
Front-line teams in various industries use shift logs to varying degrees of success due to their asynchronous shift work; however, they also lack the time to attend meetings for half of their day. I often ponder what the equivalent could look like for other contexts. When done well, they effectively systematise the Decide > Communicate > Perform > Learn stages in the pattern, but are limited in supporting ideation, perspective-taking, and recommendations.
A practical way forward:
As a leader, find ways to clarify and refine decision-making rights within your operating system.
Set aside some time with the team you are leading or your peers to reflect on where decisions are being made. How many are being brought to a meeting unnecessarily?
Identify some of the recurring decision types you encounter. Have you named a decider and set a typical time box?