Life without meetings

I today spent an exceptionally long time at my computer and at a desk, around four hours. These days, working remotely means I really do work remotely – from a park, on the balcony, while walking, or from a cafe.

A year ago, my days frequently included 14-hour work days, 6-9 of which were spent in meetings – internal meetings. I was happy if I could squeeze in a quick sandwich and coffee during some meeting, and run late for some other meeting because I simply had to pee.

As you can imagine, my quality of life has increased exponentially. As has my feeling of freedom (physical, mental, and what I can say – publicly but also as a private person). And equally importantly, I feel like I am getting things done that are important to me.

Most of our work is still evaluated on the basis of our organization (brand), position (status), presence (irreplaceability/loyalty), and working hours (importance/reachability).

Yes, I too have felt proud working for some big-shot organisations. It has felt good to feel needed, in all of these meetings.

And at the same time I have felt utterly torn. The brand hasn‘t often matched reality, and all of those meetings – what were they actually for? As the disconnect between these two conflicting feelings has grown, so has my inner discomfort.

What has this all been for? What have I achieved? What have I contributed? What good have I done? And the more I‘ve raised this issue with colleagues, the more I‘ve realized these feelings have been very common.

I have sincerely loved working with many people in my work places and roles, both internally and in partner organizations. And there have been some great meetings too. Relationships have been mended, people have been convinced, creative ideas have been born, and real collaboration and constructive debates have taken place.

But 95% of the time, meetings have been an utter waste of time. And every single person, even the convener of the meeting, has known it. Some meetings have been so painful that there has been collective whatsapping to keep things sane.

The great thing about today – with my four hours of desk time – was that this was completely voluntary. I had a few interviews for a project I am working on, and had decided to listen in and participate in a webinar and social media chat. I could have done all of this from anywhere, and aside from the interviews could have just not.

I may one day again be in a job with 14-hour working days and all of those internal meetings. Who knows. But if it‘s up to me, this is the way working life should be.

Middle Management Meaninglessness? What role do women play?

As part of my transition period, I have been reading lots of books, journal articles, and talking to inspiring people. I have also been catching up on old TED talks. I’ll here mention two recent talks I watched, which made me wonder about what value middle managers play, and particularly what this means for women.

I have for quite a few years been wondering why we are expected to sit in an office (usually quite an ugly one) all day long. As a colleague whom I spoke to recently pointed out, we often have a long commute to the office, so that we can respond to emails all day long, and then commute back home. Alternatively, we commute to the office and get pulled into meeting mayhem, while desperately struggling to respond to those emails (during meetings, in between, or in our free morning or late evening hours). There’s very little real human interaction, and definitely very little space for creative engagement, strategic planning, and – as Jason Fried points out in this funny TED talk – actual work.

As a manager in roles where I have had more freedom, I have tried to encourage my staff to work where they feel they do this best. The same goes for meetings. It can be at home, in a park, at a coffee shop, in the library, in a train, while visiting parents – I don’t honestly care where. Human interaction is nice, and is important to build trust, but who on earth needs to do this nine hours each day, and for every single meeting? Quality, not quantity, counts. Except…

Except when you are a manager who has difficulties trusting your staff. Or have forgotten that digital means – or even the old-fashioned telephone – means you can reach people no matter where they are. Or if you constantly need your staff to help you with your thinking, and perhaps to do your job. Or you lose sight of deliverables (perhaps you haven’t tasked or agreed on any, because you are so obsessed with presence value being equal to work?), and have images of staff slacking off, having fun coffees, colluding against you, and abusing their freedoms.

I once had a fabulous boss who allowed staff to work fully flexibly, even though there was a physical office and enough space for everyone. I mentioned to her that I’ve rarely seen leadership who trusts their staff so much. She responded that 80% get their work done no matter what, 10% slightly abuse the situation (i.e. do not always deliver as much or on time), and 10% overcompensate because they are motivated and perhaps grateful – it adds up to the same, but in total everyone is more motivated and happier.

In many organizations, middle managers and leaders get promoted from the ranks. Very few have management experience, and management skills are rarely a criteria for getting the job. Rather, promotions are either based on time (who’s been around and is next in line), or successes in past work (very little of which includes management skills). To be frank, this has happened to be too: I have joined organizations in a specific function, and have then been promoted to lead teams. I have become that middle manager who needs to manage staff, and has been expected to organize meetings…

Although managing teams, and seeing staff grow and flourish, has been one of the most rewarding aspects of my work, I’ve also suffered from middle management meaninglessness. What is it that I actually do? What is my actual work? I’ve been lucky to work with some fabulous staff, and to have recruited several as well. They have quickly become great at what they do, and have had strong self-organization skills. I’ve helped them define their ambitions better, aim for growth, and shown where I think they need to improve if they want to succeed. I’ve taught them what I know about time management, prioritization, and planning. I’ve tried to make their case or showcase their work in the broader organization, and provided evaluations and references where helpful.

But ultimately, I’ve ended up explicitly stating that at some point, they are more than ready to fly without me. In some of the organizations where I have worked, they have, and I am incredibly proud to keep following what they are achieving. Honestly, they would have soared high without my engagement, although perhaps some benefited from my encouragement.

Middle managers often feel removed from the actual mission of an organization. Whereas leadership decides (or should decide) a strategic direction, and staff carry out the work to get there, middle managers – well – manage. Some of these positions are important when leadership doesn’t have capacity to connect with all staff to get timely feedback on what’s working and what not (are we actually getting to where we need to, or have we stalled or are going in a different direction in reality?). Or when staff needs a lot of handholding in their work. Where both internal communication and staff are strong, middle management may not be necessary, and they may actually be a hinderance. This seems to be the conclusion of the above TED talk.

Let’s for a moment assume you work in an organization where middle management makes sense and offers some value. You may have also found a good culture and balance between oversight and flexibility, based on trust. As a middle manager, you may even have time to do some work that inspires you, and connects you to what motivated you as staff (or motivates other staff), or supports leadership set a strategic course. Then what?

Another TED talk I watched by Susan Colantuono addresses the question why so few women make it to leadership positions. She points out that there are actually many women leaders – in middle management – very few make it to the top, though. In addition to factors such as norms or care-taking roles, which she does not address, she brings in an interesting variable: strategic or business acumen. Her theory is that whereas women are mentored to make the jump from staff to middle management (network, take on responsibilities for other staff, etc.), they are not mentored to make the next jump to leadership. They train in time, people and project management – functions that are really important for middle management – but are not encouraged to think about strategy, where the organization or business is positioned vis-a-vis the entire market, and what it needs not only to become good, but to succeed externally.

Many women middle managers who I have seen crave to go back to their staff functions (albeit not the power or pay), they miss the “real work” or meaning. I’ve often felt that pull myself. But I’ve also seen the need to think big picture, and work on a strategy how to get to an end goal. It definitely isn’t by organizing more meetings, and making sure staff is even more present and available!

As we in many countries are moving out of Covid19 shutdown, and many organizations are starting to consider how staff should return to offices, I’d encourage everyone to watch some of these (admittedly pre-Zoom) talks. What are we really trying to achieve? And do we really need so many meetings, and middle managers, to get this job done?