Researchers persuaded 76 companies, each of which employed between 1,000 and 100,000 employees and worked in 50 or more countries, to take part in their study by switching to at least one meeting-free day per week.
For a company, the organisational problem of meetings is that they usually only benefit one person.
The most common meeting structure is one in which junior employees do the work of providing information to a manager, then wait and watch while others do the same.
One-to-one meetings were entirely ruled out in the study as well.
Over two years, from 2019 to 2021 – during which time, the world’s offices switched to online meetings – they surveyed more than 25,000 employees on what changed when meetings were restricted.
The researchers gathered both quantitative data (on how the companies performed) and qualitative data (how employees felt about their work), interviewing executives and HR managers.
Across the board, the change improved every metric they measured.
The study showed micromanaging came down when there were less meetings.
Stress also came down and autonomy increased.
Across all the companies in the study, the most beneficial results came when companies restricted meetings to two days per week.
At the companies with more meeting-free days, meeting quality went up.
Interestingly, the reduction in meetings didn’t lead to an increase in the other great stressor of white-collar life: email.
In fact, employees’ satisfaction with how they communicated rose. More hygienic meetings lead to more hygienic communication elsewhere.
Meetings are also literally toxic: gathering a group of people into a room can raise carbon dioxide to far above the outdoor level.
Reducing meetings would reduce CO2 levels in the room.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean all meetings are pointless. The meeting is as least as old as work itself, and for employees, it serves a human as well as a corporate purpose.
As the world returns to the office, there is an opportunity for companies to take a more rational approach to people’s time, writes @willydunn.
In January, Rishi Sunak was the only popular politician in the UK, bucking the near-universal trend for a politician to become more widely disliked as they become better known.
In early February, at the height of partygate, he appeared to hold Boris Johnson’s fate in his hands — and decided not to act.
From George Washington fighting for the Americas to today’s hero, Zelensky, leaders continue to rise from the ashes of history. newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/03/…
Zelensky, a leader on the periphery of Europe, fighting against impossible odds with Western commentators comparing him to legendary figures of the past with some even willing to risk global war to support him. He is the essence of charisma.
🟥But charisma is a more complicated phenomenon than is often realised. Charisma always resides, at least in part, in the eye of the beholder.
With Putin engaged in ominous nuclear sabre rattling since the eve of his invasion of Ukraine, a debate has been raging among nuclear experts over whether and when he might make good on his threats. newstatesman.com/security/2022/…
Although most experts agree that the overall risk of nuclear weapons being used in this conflict remains low, one of these scenarios appears more likely than the other.
If Putin’s objective is the occupation of at least some parts of Ukraine, it is hard to see how the use of a nuclear weapon on the country serves his interests.
Michael Sheen and Tony Blair discuss the roots of his desire to change Britain.
Blair: "Take the best qualities of Britain - open-mindedness, tolerance, innovation - and try to give Britain a different narrative that would allow it to think its best days are ahead of it.”
Neither the House of Commons dramatics, nor the political theatre of a promised tax cut, saved Rishi Sunak’s Spring Statement from being savaged by right, left and centre.
First, says @AndrewMarr9, if you are going to pull a rabbit from a hat, make sure it’s a real, live and twitching rabbit, and not the airy promise of a possible bunny in two years’ time.
National character is a slippery eel; the moment you think you have a grip on it, it’s gone. Its essence is fleeting; its shape shifts constantly and yet you know it when you see it, even if each person sees something different. newstatesman.com/politics/a-dre…
That is true of all nations and yet feels particularly true of Britain.
In the absence of a constitution or a bill of rights we have no foundational documents to refer to, beyond the Magna Carta, which was not even written in English.