An interesting perspective on meetings that I was once told is:
"Meetings are for ratification of an already-made decision"
This sounds like some of the 'bad management' examples mentioned in the article. However, this was further explained:
"The hard work in getting agreement is in prior discussion with, and feedback from, individual decision makers".
This is essentially having multiple smaller lead-up meetings to discuss the ins and outs and work out the kinks, and then the "big" meeting is primarily theatrical in explaining the end result and ratifying the decision. This won't work in all contexts, but the methodology could be an overall time saver and allow for more well-thought-out compromises or changes, as it's done over a larger span of time. It also means quieter and more thoughtful decision-makers are given equal standing.
Creative solutions can often come out of the blue, and it's unlikely that it'll strike conveniently during the X-minute meeting window whilst trying to listen to and process a whole bunch of other peoples' opinions. Give them some time to come to the boil.
THere is a particular term for when a group of people all know that everyone else in the group know somehting.
I have forgotten the word but to me this is what meetings are about in a way. go one to one first, get all the feedback, make all the changes. then get everyone in a room and say "everyone knows this diagram/document/decision point, right and we all agree on it" - then everyone looks round the room and somethign animal happens.. a new word may have entered their vocaulary, or a new imaginary hill top to strive for exists.
That common agreement is like a wedding or something.. it sort of means nothing.. but now we can all use this shorthand "married" and certain expectations will commonly align.. not only that you can ask just about anyone who knows the couple and they will have a very clear memory that, yes that definately happened, yes i will testify as a witness (i cannot lie about it as there were lots of people at that wedding).
I think the term you're looking for is... "common knowledge"[0].
And indeed, there are peculiar things that happen once you cross the thresholds between knowing something, knowing that others know it too, and knowing that everyone knows everyone knows it.
Related to this, and I'm guessing where you were going with your wedding analogy, is the concept of intersubjectivity[1].
Intersubjectivity happens when you have people sharing subjective states or beliefs, and are aware they're sharing it. Pretty much all critical social infrastructure - all of modern life - depends on it. For example:
- Money is an intersubjective phenomenon. It holds value only because - and only for as long as - everyone knows that everyone else in the community will accept it as a means of payment. This shared belief is usually bootstrapped and maintained by a government declaring they'll accept a given form of money for purposes of taxation - but on smaller scales, can also start in many other ways.
- Organizations like governments and corporations are an intersubjective phenomenon. To borrow an example from Harari[2], a corporation like Porsche doesn't really exist in physical space - it's an abstract entity that exists only because, and for as long as, people believe it exists. It's independent of people employed in or running it - the board could fire all employees, and then the government could forcefully replace the board, and Porsche would still be there, with all the factories and offices and salons it owns.
- Companies are bootstrapped into being by performing certain rituals - offering monetary sacrifices to the government and getting the right priests sign the right legal paperwork. These rituals - and all laws in general - are also intersubjective. They have power only because, and for as long as, people believe they do (and believe everyone else believes it too).
It's kind of mind-blowing if you think about it - all the structure of our civilization is just an enormous pile of interconnected shared delusions. But it works, because intersubjective phenomena are extremely resilient - people can stop believing in them individually, but it doesn't matter for as long as enough other people keep the faith. It takes a critical mass of people to lose confidence in a visible way, or a memetic weapon[3], to shut down such an intersubjective phenomenon.
[2] - As much as I remember it. I was introduced to the name "intersubjectivity" through his book, Sapiens.
[3] - People don't have to actually lose faith in something - they just need to believe that enough other people believe that enough other people don't believe anymore.
Porsche, as self-preserving meme-complex would probably cease to actually exist, unless they have written down very detailed ~indoctrination~ training materials for every relevant position. The legal entity would still be there but another lifeform would wear it's skin.
This, I spend a lot of time going one to one to convince people before going to the larger audience, people knew the expectations and if they had any concerns, I was prepared. The only time it didn't go as planned was when a team-member wanted his hour of fame.
I think parliamentary politics works a lot like this too. All the important decisions are made in off-the-record, arm-around-shoulder, hallway conversations and horse-trading. Then the plenary sessions and votes are just to formalise what has already been decided.
"Meetings are for ratification of an already-made decision"
This sounds like some of the 'bad management' examples mentioned in the article. However, this was further explained:
"The hard work in getting agreement is in prior discussion with, and feedback from, individual decision makers".
This is essentially having multiple smaller lead-up meetings to discuss the ins and outs and work out the kinks, and then the "big" meeting is primarily theatrical in explaining the end result and ratifying the decision. This won't work in all contexts, but the methodology could be an overall time saver and allow for more well-thought-out compromises or changes, as it's done over a larger span of time. It also means quieter and more thoughtful decision-makers are given equal standing.
Creative solutions can often come out of the blue, and it's unlikely that it'll strike conveniently during the X-minute meeting window whilst trying to listen to and process a whole bunch of other peoples' opinions. Give them some time to come to the boil.