According to Alec Mackenzie (of Time Trap fame), the average American manager spends 450–500 hours a year in meetings, which is one day per week. If they're not to overwhelm our schedules, therefore, meetings deserve special treatment. Indeed, the self-help universe has produced a series of books focusing on making this most inefficient activity more, well, efficient. That said, most broaden out to include topics such as decision-making and planning – making the one that manages to stay on-topic valuable indeed.

Writing in Make Meetings Matter (2008) communications consultant Charlie Hawkins deconstructs meeting dynamics to offer a strong structure for planning and running meetings. Planning is the key, it seems, with Hawkins offering the four Ps for perfect planning: ‘purpose, people, place and preparation’.

What's our purpose?

‘Starting a meeting without a purpose is like starting a journey without a specific destination in mind’, writes Hawkins.

He's also insistent that we're honest about the reason for our meeting. It's unproductive to force people to labour under a hidden purpose, he says – perhaps the notion that this is a brainstorming session when the real reason is the organizer's desire for approval on a particular idea. Such dishonesty can generate resistance rather than agreement, says Hawkins, which is hardly a recipe for a productive meeting.

Yet Hawkins also states there's no point holding a meeting without a clear idea of the preferred outcome (we just need to state this honestly). And this is the case even if that preference becomes impossible as the meeting unfolds.

Of course, meetings are often about making decisions – hence the sub-genre's temptation to include this theme in their books. But there's a problem: according to McCormack (in What They Don't Teach …) decisions in meetings smack of decisions by committee, which are usually poor ones (the camel famously being a horse that was said to have been designed by a committee).

This leaves us in the awkward position that McCormack dislikes decision-making meetings while Hawkins dislikes meetings where any decision has been pre-agreed and the meeting is simply to try to force a consensus. As for Time Trap's Mackenzie – his view is that the core purpose of a meeting is planning and co-ordination, as well as for settling issues involving fairness – ‘the kinds of decisions people want debated, not dumped on them’, he says.

‘Meetings are also best for creative problem-solving, giving recognition, and celebrating victories’, he states.

That said, I cannot help thinking all these gurus have missed a core reason for a face-to-face meeting: persuasion. While other uses for meetings – such as catch-ups or mentoring – can potentially be as effective via the phone, only a face-to-face meeting can coax possibly reluctant people to your point of view.

The people

The next Hawkins ‘P’ is for people: who to make our ‘meeting hostages’ as Mackenzie calls them. ‘Hostages’ is a good word because there are few things more unproductive than being trapped in a meeting we shouldn't be attending.

Too many or too few participants can make a meeting unproductive, so we must consider what group size best fits our purpose. If the meeting is to report information, then there's no reason not to invite everyone affected and only allow wider contribution at the Q&A session after a presentation. Yet, if any form of decision is required, smaller groups are necessary – with the participation list limited, according to Hawkins, to those with a direct stake in the process.

McCormack's view is that a meeting's productivity is ‘inversely proportionate to the number of people attending it’, adding that ‘the vast majority of internal meetings are attended by more people than need to be there’.

He blames this on executives who judge the value of what they say by the number of people forced to listen to them. The other major cause is what he calls the ‘left-out factor’, in which people judge their importance to the company by the number of meetings they're asked to attend.

Place is important

Returning to Hawkins's four Ps for planning the perfect meeting, we should next tackle place. This is more important than it seems, states Hawkins. He offers the view that ‘the room sets the tone for the meeting. If it's inviting, people will feel better and are likely to be better participants.’

Certainly, it needs to be conducive. Stuck in a windowless room too small for the number and with no refreshments, people will feel anxious and impatient, although this has its upside in terms of helping people come to a decision. Indeed, McCormack goes as far as suggesting some meetings are better held standing up (as is the Privy Council meeting with the Queen – initiated as an aid to brevity) or in hallways – offering the bonus that ‘people will be less upset about not being invited’.

Meanwhile, Michael Heppell (How to Save an Hour Every Day) has the perfect TV role-model for meetings: The West Wing. He observes that, in the White House drama, meetings with President Bartlett have the following characteristics:

• No one is ever late so they always start on time.
• No one dawdles in to the room – there is a state of constant hustle.
• No one starts with small talk – it's straight to the crux of the meeting.
• No one offers refreshments, or starts with a PowerPoint presentation, or distributes papers, or worries about who's taking the minutes.
• No one even sits down – with many meetings taking place in a corridor or even on the move.
• No one says ‘we'll park it til next week’.
• No one meanders or fence-sits an opinion. Phrases like ‘on the one hand …’ are rarely heard.
• No one offers to write a meeting note to summarize the discussion.

Of course, this is fiction – but the closer we can get to making this our reality, the more effective our meetings will be.

One last thought on place: why not book a room for 45 minutes, rather than an hour? As Heppell states, most meetings last an hour because that's what's scheduled. Yet, if you scheduled 45 minutes instead (perhaps starting at 15 minutes past the hour to reduce the temptation to take it to the hour), the meeting would only last that long, and remain just as effective.

Go prepared

And finally in the Hawkins quartet of Ps there's preparation. Of course, an agenda's good but they tend to look naked without a list of at least five items (one of which will be the self-defeating AOB). Yet this isn't the annual general meeting of the West Yorkshire Branch of the Municipal Boilermakers Union, so the most effective agenda will be a short one.

Something like:

Yet the most important aspect of the above is in stating the expected outcome – requiring all preparation by all participants to be focused on that outcome. And if Jim, John or Jane want some input into those next steps, they'll need to have their arguments ready (though not in a presentation format).

Hawkins talks of ‘ground rules’ for a meeting, which should be stated beforehand, although this may come across as pompous or controlling. That said, the agenda above makes it pretty clear that intensity of discussion is the key requirement here, not breadth.

For such discussions, our preparation should be no more than 10–20 minutes spent somewhere quiet jotting down the five or six key points we wish to make. What do we want from the meeting, what must be discussed, what has to be agreed? Again, the warning is to stay on-topic – and definitely avoid criticisms or personal point-scoring. I've seen too many meetings hijacked by someone with a (usually personal) axe to grind, which, for them at least, is far more important than the topic being discussed.

How do we get what we want?

The trouble with all the above, however, is that it seems so negative, as if the best outcome is neutral – that we've not had our time wasted or we've avoided catastrophe. This is a shame because meetings can be fantastically effective in getting what we want. As stated, I think persuasion is the core function of any meeting. So, if we get the dynamics right, meetings should help us take giant leaps towards our goals.

Here are my own thoughts on generating the meeting dynamics that aid persuasion:

• Don't deliberately sit across from the person you aim to influence. Sure, in a one-to-one you'd look ridiculous sitting side by side. But a seating arrangement involving your team on one side of the table and their team on the other makes it immediately adversarial (making agreement less likely). So mix it up.
• Most tables are rectangular, so avoid sitting at the head of the table – offer that to the person you're meeting: it'll make them feel important.
• In fact, right through the meeting you should give off strong signals that the person you're meeting – even if junior – is important and valued. This is their meeting. Indeed, start by complimenting them about something – anything.
• When talking, make good eye contact with those in the meeting room. Don't focus just on the boss – rove around, making strong eye contact with everyone.
• Smile. Be bright and cheerful – and remain so even if the people you're meeting are grumpy. That said, their mood may be deliberate – trying to project gravitas perhaps – which you should respect. Showing professionalism and concern, however, doesn't have to involve a frown. And your cheerfulness may be infectious.
• Offer business cards and read the ones given to you (it's always worth getting a quick handle on job titles and hierarchy). If handed several, I arrange them in front of me to reflect the seating arrangements, which means they act as aid to name recollection.
• Yes, use their names. But don't overuse them. This is a business meeting between professionals, not a seduction (no matter what the sales gurus tell you). Certainly, first or given names are fine. The days when it was strictly ‘Mister Smith’ until invited otherwise are over, although anyone who's clearly over 60 may still appreciate this approach.
• End the meeting well. I've been left with some terrible impressions by people simply standing up as a silent indication that the meeting's over. It's an arrogant power play and worth avoiding. It's also unnecessary when a simple white lie such as ‘I have a three o'clock, so I have to keep going I'm afraid’ is far more effective – especially if we add something positive about what's been achieved.
• If you get what you want, put it in writing as soon as possible – that day preferably. This is where email is now on your side, allowing verbal agreements to be formalized before they've had time to think of the negatives. Be brief, but don't delay – verbal agreements in a meeting mean nothing (and can be a way of getting you out the door). Get it in writing – pronto!