Shall we meet? When to say yes or no.

Synchronous (adjective): happening or existing at the same time

Asynchronous (adjective): not existing or occurring at the same time

“I didn't see you in this morning's meeting, where were you?”

“Ah, I couldn't make it – I had a dentist appointment so I took a half-day. Did I miss anything important?”

“Not really. We started late because the team that had the meeting room booked before us over-ran, then the screen wasn’t working for the people attending remotely, so that took a while to get sorted. After the small-talk concluded, we had just enough time for the first two agenda items from last week’s meeting, a few people were put on the spot to report on progress and next steps and another meeting was arranged for next week at the same time.”

“Ah, okay then, same as last week.”

Let's Have A Meeting...

Meetings: the default forum to make progress in the modern workplace. They allow us to chat face-to-face or screen-to-screen (or face-to-screen), with our human colleagues; shoot the breeze about weekend plans; set agendas; allocate work; report on capacity and new opportunities and, most importantly, discuss the progress being made with the tasks we've been set to ensure deadlines are met, KPIs are hit, clients are happy, reputations are preserved and money is made. But have we ever thought that meetings themselves are a barrier to that progress? Has your workplace considered whether asynchronous communication might work better? 

Meetings are synchronous: everyone together at the same time to discuss the same things. It seems an efficient way to operate, right? So why did a recent study by Atlassian reveal that almost 50% of 5,000 employees across 4 continents spend 4 hours per week in unproductive meetings? And why did the same survey conclude that “meetings are ineffective 72% of the time” and “the #1 barrier to productivity”?

Just a few reasons:

1.  They overwhelm and encourage snap decisions: meetings throw out all the data at once, putting attendees in the hot-seat without time to properly consider their responses.

2.  They encourage “conversational chaos”: multiple attendees trying to contribute to a discussion results in only the ‘loudest’ voices being heard. Valuable contributions are lost.

3.  They're too rigid: the time allotted guides the progress of the agenda, with attendees often clock-watching because they need to be in another meeting soon.  

Meetings can be terribly inefficient and waste time that could (and should) be reclaimed. 

The alternative: asynchronous communication – think emails, recorded videos & audio, written messages and collaboration via comments and responses in communal work spaces.

Remote Control

A lot of us hoped that the remote working capabilities thrust upon organisations by the Covid-19 pandemic would offer more control of how work is tailored to our workstyles. However, most of us (managers and employees alike) are under-skilled at understanding when to use asynchronous communication methods.

Unfortunately (but understandably) in the absence of any investment in understanding how this distinction can be employed, most of us have replicated our old in-office working practices when working remotely. We're convening the same regular and grossly unproductive meetings, the only difference is that some of us are now faces on screens rather than bodies in rooms. The result is the same: overwhelmed employees deprived of work time that could be utilised according to their own workstyle, personality traits and personal schedules, and tailored to the specific requirements of the task.

As hybrid working continues within most organisations, there's a real opportunity to start investing in business sense: balancing ‘sync’ and ‘async’ practices and knowing which should be used according to its impact on both a team and its productivity.

To meet or not to meet? That is the question

So how do we close the skills-gap on this? How do we encourage our managers and those setting work for others to decide whether a task would benefit from a ‘sync’ or an ‘async’ approach?

A 2024 study by the Harvard Business Review found that synchronous communication is best when quick decisions are needed, or when diverse viewpoints must be exchanged in real-time. It follows that where a task requires deeper focus, considered collaboration or is not time-sensitive, it would be better suited to asynchronous communication.

If this resonates with you and your workplace, why not use the following test when deciding whether to adopt ‘sync’ or ‘async’. Think about the task, and ask yourself three questions:

1.   Is it time-sensitive?

2.  Does it involve a conflict or a problem which can only be resolved by real-time discussion?

3.  Can a meeting be arranged at a time and in a format which is convenient for everyone involved?

If the answer to any of these questions is ‘No’ then the answer must be async.

Try it. You'll be amazed at how much more time, clarity and brain space you have. 

If you’re interested in us helping your team or organisation to set better ways of working that maximise productivity, do get in touch at lizzie@workstyle.org.uk

This blog was written by one of our team of fantastic volunteers, Jordan Frazer, on behalf of the Workstyle Revolution.