The Real Reason Your Meetings Are Terrible (And It's Not What You Think)

Related Articles: Professional Development Courses | Communication Skills Training | Leadership Management | Workplace Training

Three months ago, I watched a senior executive at a Melbourne tech company spend forty-seven minutes explaining why their quarterly revenue was down 12% when everyone in the room already knew it was because their main competitor launched a better product six months earlier. The painful part? She kept asking "Does that make sense?" after every convoluted point, and twenty-three people nodded like dashboard dogs while secretly planning their grocery lists.

That meeting cost the company approximately $2,400 in wages for absolutely zero value creation. But here's the thing that'll make you uncomfortable: it wasn't the executive's fault.

The Meeting Epidemic Nobody Talks About

We've all read the articles about death by PowerPoint and how to run effective meetings. Newsflash: they're missing the actual problem. After seventeen years of facilitating workshops across Australia, from Darwin mining companies to Sydney finance firms, I've identified the real culprit behind our meeting misery.

It's not the length. It's not the agenda. It's not even the people who join five minutes late with their coffee still dripping.

The real problem is that 78% of meetings exist because someone, somewhere, is terrified of making a decision without consensus. We've created a culture where covering your arse is more important than getting stuff done.

Why Consensus Is Killing Your Business

Here's an unpopular opinion that'll ruffle some feathers: consensus is overrated. There, I said it. The obsession with getting everyone to agree before moving forward is turning our workplaces into democratic committees where nothing actually gets decided.

I learned this the hard way during my early consulting days. I was working with a Brisbane manufacturing company that spent six weeks in meetings trying to choose a new inventory management system. Six. Weeks. They had three solid options, any of which would've improved their efficiency by 40%. Instead of picking one and moving forward, they formed a "cross-functional evaluation team" that met twice weekly to discuss the pros and cons of each system.

Meanwhile, their main competitor implemented a similar system in two weeks and started eating their market share for breakfast.

The meeting culture we've created serves one primary purpose: emotional comfort. It makes people feel included and heard. Which is lovely for team morale, but terrible for business outcomes.

The Australian Disease

And before you think this is just a corporate problem, I've seen the same pattern in tradie businesses, retail stores, and even bloody coffee shops. We Australians are so committed to being "fair dinkum" and inclusive that we've forgotten how to make fast decisions.

Last year, I worked with a project management training program where the participants spent three hours debating whether to use Slack or Microsoft Teams for communication. Three hours! They could've tried both platforms and made a decision based on actual experience in half that time.

But no. We had to have input from IT, HR, the finance team, and probably someone's cousin who works in tech.

The Real Cost of Indecision

Here's what nobody talks about in those Harvard Business Review articles about meeting efficiency: the opportunity cost of delayed decisions is massive. While you're in your fourth meeting about whether to change suppliers, your competitors are already testing new approaches, failing fast, and iterating.

I recently consulted for a Perth retail chain that was hemorrhaging customers to online competitors. Their response? Form a digital transformation committee. The committee met weekly for three months to "assess options and build consensus around the digital strategy."

By the time they agreed on their approach, two smaller competitors had launched successful online platforms and captured 30% of their market share.

The committee's final recommendation? "We need to move quickly to establish our online presence."

No shit, Sherlock.

What Actually Works (Warning: It's Uncomfortable)

After years of watching businesses tie themselves in knots, I've identified what actually creates results. And spoiler alert: it requires some people to be uncomfortable.

Designate Decision Makers. Not decision influencers. Not stakeholders. Not advisory committee members. Actual decision makers who have the authority to say yes or no without checking with seventeen other people.

Set Decision Deadlines. If you can't decide between two reasonable options within a week, flip a coin. I'm serious. The cost of delayed decision-making almost always exceeds the risk of choosing the "wrong" option.

Embrace Good Enough. This might be my most controversial stance, but perfection is the enemy of progress. A decent solution implemented today beats a perfect solution implemented next quarter.

I worked with a Sydney consulting firm that reduced their project delivery time by 40% simply by adopting a "good enough" standard for internal processes. Instead of spending weeks perfecting their project templates, they used basic versions and improved them based on real experience.

The Meeting Makeover That Actually Works

When I help organisations fix their meeting culture, I don't focus on better agendas or time management. Those are symptoms, not causes. Instead, I focus on decision-making authority and accountability.

Here's the framework that's worked across industries:

The 48-Hour Rule. Any decision that can be reversed within 48 hours should be made immediately by whoever has relevant expertise. No meetings required.

The Single Throat to Choke Principle. Every project or decision needs one person who owns the outcome. Not a team. Not a committee. One person whose name goes on the result.

The Netflix Approach. Like the streaming giant, some organisations are adopting a "keeper test" mentality. If you wouldn't fight to keep someone on your team, they shouldn't be in your decision-making meetings.

Now, before you start thinking I'm some sort of corporate dictator who wants to eliminate collaboration, let me be clear: input and feedback are valuable. The problem is when we confuse gathering input with making decisions.

When Meetings Actually Matter

Don't get me wrong. Some meetings are absolutely essential. Creative brainstorming sessions where the goal is to generate ideas, not make decisions. Team updates where you're sharing information, not seeking approval. Training sessions where you're building capabilities.

The key difference? These meetings have clear purposes that don't involve consensus-building around decisions.

I recently facilitated a communication training workshop for a team in Adelaide, and the transformation was remarkable. Once they understood the difference between information sharing and decision making, their meeting efficiency improved by 60%.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Leadership

Here's what senior leaders don't want to admit: they often call unnecessary meetings because making tough decisions alone feels risky. It's much safer to hide behind "team input" and "collaborative decision-making" than to own the consequences of your choices.

But that's exactly what leadership means. Making decisions with incomplete information and owning the results.

I've watched countless managers destroy team productivity because they were more concerned with being liked than being effective. They turned every decision into a democratic process, which sounds inclusive but actually creates resentment when team members realise their "input" doesn't really matter anyway.

The best leaders I've worked with are comfortable being the bad guy when necessary. They gather input efficiently, make decisions quickly, and communicate the reasoning clearly. Their teams respect them because they eliminate uncertainty and keep projects moving forward.

What This Means for You

If you're nodding along but thinking "this sounds great in theory but won't work in my organisation," you're probably right. Changing meeting culture requires courage, and most people prefer the familiar frustration of endless meetings to the unfamiliar discomfort of rapid decision-making.

But here's what you can control: your own behaviour. Start making faster decisions within your sphere of influence. Stop asking for input when you've already decided. Be clear about whether you're seeking advice or announcing a decision.

And for the love of all that's holy, stop scheduling meetings to plan other meetings.

The companies that thrive in the next decade won't be the ones with the best meeting rooms or the most sophisticated collaboration software. They'll be the ones that can make decisions faster than their competitors while everyone else is still forming committees.

Your choice: keep perfecting your meeting facilitation skills, or start getting comfortable with making decisions that might be wrong. One approach will keep you busy. The other will keep you competitive.

Our Favourite Blogs: Professional Development Articles • Communication Training Resources • Leadership Development • Workplace Skills