By Guest commentary Saturday, December 21st, 2024

By Gerhard Apfelthaler

Do you ever feel that you spend too much time in meetings where nothing gets done? 

You are not alone. 

In a 2019 Harvard Business Review Article, it is estimated that every day about 55 million meetings are held in the United States alone. 

Considering that a typical number of meeting participants in the United States ranges from 6 to 10 according to the 2023 State of Meetings report by scheduling platform Doodle and that they last anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes that’s at least 165 million person-hours spent in meetings. 

EVERY DAY. Does anybody seriously think that we’re getting value for money here?

Group meetings facilitate information sharing, inclusiveness, and team cohesion, but they also have serious limitations, especially when they increase in size. 

A significant body of research suggests that large group meetings are far from ideal for solving complex problems or designing strategies. 

In the business world, complexity often stems from interdependent variables, uncertain outcomes, and the need for creative solutions. 

Research indicates that large group settings struggle to solve these types of challenges. 

One of the primary reasons is “social loafing,” a phenomenon in which individuals contribute less in large group settings than they would on their own, mostly due to the diffusion of responsibility. 

This starts with sound preparation for meetings and extends to follow-up responsibilities. 

Social loafing leads to a lack of engagement and accountability, both critical for problem-solving. 

Or, in other words, if everyone shares responsibility, then everyone is off the hook!

Another reason is that large group meetings tend to suffer from what is known as “groupthink” — the desire for consensus, which overrides the willingness of individuals to voice dissenting opinions. 

Such a lack of psychological safety can stifle critical thinking and creativity, which are essential for addressing complex issues. 

In large groups, members might be more inclined to agree with dominant voices rather than challenging ideas. 

As a result, the group’s capacity for innovation diminishes. 

This problem is exacerbated when there are imbalances in power and expertise. 

While team diversity is often linked to better performance, outcomes of meetings can also be inferior when the voices of those with power and authority are disproportionately heard in comparison to those who have valuable expertise. 

On the flip side, cognitive overload can be another limiting factor. 

The more participants in a meeting, the greater the amount of information and the number of perspectives, which can become overwhelming. 

Research in cognitive psychology suggests that when people are exposed to too much information, they are more likely to experience decision paralysis. 

As a result, decisions may often be vague compromises or simplistic shortcuts rather than carefully deliberated choices. 

According to Prospect Theory, individuals under stress tend to rely on heuristics and mental shortcuts. This can result in a lack of critical examination, further weakening the quality of solutions.

The very structure of large meetings also frequently leaves little room for deep engagement. 

Complex problem-solving typically requires iterative thinking, where ideas are revisited, challenged, and refined. 

In a large setting, the logistics of managing numerous participants — often starting with the simple task of identifying meeting times that work for everyone — restrict the opportunity for back-and-forth exchanges and reduce the likelihood that ideas will be thoroughly examined. 

This bottleneck in large meetings prevents the natural flow of critical discussions, leading to surface-level interactions rather than meaningful, in-depth analysis.

Given these limitations, alternative approaches to solving complex problems are increasingly being explored in management and organizational behavior research. 

Small, cross-functional teams are one such alternative, as they often bring diverse perspectives without the cognitive overload associated with large groups. 

Small teams with members from different backgrounds tend to engage in more open, productive dialogue, which facilitates innovative problem-solving.

Technology, too, can play a transformative role in addressing the pitfalls of large group meetings. 

Digital collaboration tools can enable teams to work asynchronously, thus avoiding the pressure to make decisions within a limited timeframe. 

Platforms that facilitate structured idea-sharing, such as Slack or Miro, allow team members to contribute at their own pace, fostering a more thoughtful exchange of ideas. 

Studies on digital collaboration show that these platforms can improve problem-solving by creating environments where ideas can be refined gradually rather than under the pressure of a singular, time-bound meeting.

Let’s stop wasting millions of hours, and jeopardizing employee motivation and engagement. 

By embracing smaller teams and digital collaboration tools, organizations can better address the challenges inherent in complex problem-solving and strategy design. 

Ultimately, by rethinking the structure and purpose of meetings, leaders can cultivate environments that foster more thoughtful, innovative solutions.

Gerhard Apfelthaler is a professor and the dean of the School of Management at California Lutheran University.