CHAPTER 29
Stand-Up Meetings Don’t Work for Everybody
by Bob Frisch
Stand-up meetings have become a routine part of the workday in many organizations, mostly due to the adoption of agile and other innovative management methods. These are usually brief daily progress sessions in which an initiative team updates and coordinates efforts. The phrase “stand up” is literal—participants remain standing for the duration of the meeting—and the reason is speed. You want people to rapidly surface issues and solve disagreements. As the Wikipedia entry for stand-up meetings explains, “The discomfort of standing for long periods is intended to keep the meetings short.”
While it’s hard to argue with the success of agile tactics, it’s worth taking a moment to question the wisdom of an organization adopting stand-up meetings on a widespread basis. They don’t work for all interactions, and as with anything, treating them as a one-size-fits-all solution can have unintended consequences.
When I was a managing partner at Accenture, our organization and change strategy team helped design a new conference facility for one of our offices. We specifically varied the table shapes and sizes. Some rooms had a large round one in the center, others the classic boat-shaped, boardroom model. We had open-ended rectangles and squares, as well as U-shaped (with the boss typically seated at the center of the bottom of the U) and V-shaped (where the facilitator can move forward to stand in front of the individual participants) options. The reason for such variety is clear: The dynamics of a meeting are directly related to how people are seated relative to the boss, to one another, and to the presenter or facilitator.
Now think about a stand-up meeting, in which there is no rhyme or reason to how people are positioned. And overlay that with physical differences between teammates. Imagine someone who is 5′3″ trying to make a point when a 6′4″ colleague is standing in front of them, or picture the two debating the pros and cons of a critical problem while standing up. Don’t think that’s an issue? Then I’d bet you’re not 5′3″. Remember too that, statistically speaking, the average male is taller than the average female, so height-ism often carries over into sexism.
Consider also a healthy 25-year-old negotiating a difficult compromise with a 63-year-old peer who suffers from a mild heart condition, with the “time clock” for resolution set by the fact that both have to stand for the length of the conversation. The higher stamina of the younger worker could certainly put an unappreciated thumb on the scale in their favor. Attempting to compensate for these differences by, for example, telling the short people to stand in front or offering the older worker a seat while everyone else stands only serves to reinforce these inequalities. Chairs may make meetings longer, but, depending on the layout of the table, they also put everyone on equal footing (so to speak).
I’m not advocating for eliminating stand-up meetings. They can be effective in certain circumstances, and research has shown that they can boost group productivity (see the preface of this book for more on the benefits of stand-up meetings). But any organization that uses them regularly should review how, when, and why they’re being held. Is one stand-up per day or week appropriate for your team instead of several? Should stand-up meetings be limited to 5 or 10 minutes or allowed to go longer, occasionally substantially so? Will people really perform better at the desired activity—brainstorming, discussing, decision making, and so on—while on their feet?
Assume you were 5′3″ or in ill health or the most petite female in your organization having a raging disagreement with a tall, young, fit male. Would you want to be standing or seated?
Bob Frisch is the managing partner of the Strategic Offsites Group, a Boston-based consultancy; author of Who’s In The Room? How Great Leaders Structure and Manage the Teams Around Them (Jossey-Bass, 2012); and co author, with Cary Greene, of Simple Sabotage: A Modern Field Manual for Detecting and Rooting Out Everyday Behaviors That Undermine Your Workplace (HarperOne, 2015). He is the author of four Harvard Business Review articles, including “Off-Sites That Work” (June 2006), and is a frequent contributor to hbr.org.
Adapted from content posted on hbr.org on May 27, 2016.