The Meeting Trap: Why 67% of Australian Managers Are Getting It Wrong

You know that feeling when you walk out of a three-hour "strategic planning session" and realise you've accomplished less than you would have in fifteen minutes of focused email?

Been there. Done that. Bought the overpriced corporate t-shirt.

After seventeen years of facilitating everything from board meetings to team catch-ups across Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne, I've developed some pretty strong opinions about what makes meetings work—and what sends them straight into the productivity graveyard.

The Real Problem With Australian Meeting Culture

Here's what nobody wants to admit: we're absolutely terrible at meetings in this country. Not because we're lazy or incompetent, but because we've inherited this weird British-meets-American hybrid approach that doesn't actually serve anyone.

I was chatting with a client last month—major mining company, won't name names but they wear a lot of yellow—and their CEO told me they calculated they spent $2.3 million last year on meetings that produced zero actionable outcomes. Zero. That's not a typo.

The thing is, most Australian managers think a good meeting means everyone gets to speak, everyone feels heard, and we reach consensus. Sounds lovely, doesn't it? Complete rubbish in practice.

Opinion Alert: Sometimes the best meetings are the ones where three people make decisions and everyone else just implements. Democracy is wonderful for elections. It's death for quarterly planning.

What Nobody Teaches You About Meeting Dynamics

Here's where it gets interesting. The most productive meetings I've ever witnessed had one thing in common: someone was brave enough to be slightly rude.

Not aggressive. Not dismissive. Just willing to say "That's interesting, but it's not relevant to today's agenda" or "We're not solving that problem in this room."

I learned this the hard way back in 2019 when I was working with a tech startup in Surry Hills. Their weekly team meetings were these beautiful, collaborative disasters. Everyone contributed. Everyone felt valued. Nothing ever got decided.

Then their new COO started running them like military briefings. Agenda items had time limits. Tangents got parked. People had to come prepared or they got passed over.

Revenue increased 34% in six months.

Coincidence? I highly doubt it.

The Four Meeting Types Every Manager Needs to Master

Not all meetings are created equal, and treating them like they are will kill your productivity faster than you can say "let's circle back on that."

Information Transfer Meetings should be emails. Full stop. If you're just telling people stuff, send it in writing. The only exception is when you need to see facial expressions to gauge reaction—like announcing redundancies or major strategic pivots.

Decision-Making Meetings need a maximum of seven people. Research shows that every person beyond seven reduces decision quality by 10%. I don't care if it hurts feelings. Math doesn't lie.

Creative Brainstorming Sessions work best with mixed groups and no hierarchy in the room. Your junior marketing coordinator might have the breakthrough idea, but they'll never share it if their director is sitting there looking sceptical.

Problem-Solving Meetings should start with the problem clearly defined and end with specific next steps assigned to specific people with specific deadlines.

You know what doesn't work? The generic "team meeting" where you try to do all four things at once.

The Technology Trap (And Why Zoom Isn't Your Friend)

Everyone jumped on the video conferencing bandwagon during COVID, and now we're stuck with it like that ugly couch you bought during lockdown.

Here's my unpopular opinion: most meetings work better when people can't see each other.

I know, I know. Body language. Visual cues. Human connection. All very important. But here's what actually happens in video meetings: people spend 40% of their mental energy managing their appearance and background instead of focusing on the content.

Audio-only conference calls force people to listen better. They can't zone out by checking phones (as easily). They have to engage verbally to participate.

The exception? Team development training sessions and complex problem-solving where you need to see reactions and build genuine rapport.

But for your standard operational meeting? Pick up the phone.

The Australian Politeness Problem

We're too nice. There, I said it.

Australian workplace culture prioritises harmony over efficiency, and it's killing our meeting effectiveness. We spend fifteen minutes on small talk because we don't want to seem abrupt. We let conversations drift because interrupting feels rude. We avoid making hard decisions because someone might be disappointed.

Meanwhile, our international competitors are eating our lunch.

I worked with a German automotive company a few years back—they had Australian operations but retained their head office meeting style. Meetings started on time, finished early, and produced clear action items. No chitchat about weekend plans. No lengthy explanations for why we can't do obvious things.

Their employee satisfaction scores were actually higher than their Australian competitors. Turns out people prefer clarity and respect for their time over forced friendliness.

The Politics Minefield Nobody Discusses

Every meeting has invisible power dynamics that most managers completely ignore. Who speaks first sets the tone. Where people sit influences participation. Who gets asked for opinions directly versus who has to fight for airtime.

Smart managers learn to handle office politics instead of pretending they don't exist. This means:

• Rotating who speaks first in team meetings
• Asking quiet team members directly for input
• Not letting the same three people dominate every discussion
• Being aware of gender, age, and cultural dynamics in your group

My Meeting Framework That Actually Works

After years of trial and error (mostly error), here's what I recommend:

Before the meeting: Send a specific agenda 24 hours in advance. Include the decision that needs to be made or the problem to be solved. If people come unprepared, they don't get to participate in the decision.

During the meeting: Start with context, not consensus. Explain the situation. Present the options. Then—and this is crucial—give people time to think before you ask for opinions.

After the meeting: Send action items within two hours. Include who, what, and when for every task. No vague "we should explore this further" nonsense.

The Unspoken Rules of Senior-Level Meetings

Here's something they don't teach you in management courses: executive meetings follow completely different rules than team meetings.

At senior levels, most of the real discussion happens before the formal meeting. The actual meeting is theatre—a way to confirm decisions that have already been made in smaller conversations.

This isn't corruption or conspiracy. It's efficiency. When you're dealing with multi-million-dollar decisions, you don't want surprises or lengthy debates in a formal setting.

What About Remote Teams?

The hybrid workplace has created new meeting challenges nobody saw coming. You can't read the room when half the room is virtual. Side conversations are impossible. Energy levels are completely different.

My solution? Don't try to recreate in-person meetings online. Create new formats designed for the medium.

Asynchronous video updates for status reports. Shared documents for collaborative editing. Short, focused video calls for specific decisions only.

Why Most Meeting Training Fails

Companies spend thousands on meeting effectiveness training that teaches people to use parking lots for off-topic items and assign timeboxes to agenda items. Then they wonder why nothing changes.

The real issue isn't technique. It's permission.

People need permission to be direct. Permission to challenge ideas. Permission to say "this meeting isn't necessary." Permission to end discussions that aren't productive.

The Measurement Problem

How do you know if your meetings are working? Most managers use completely useless metrics like "engagement" or "participation levels."

Here are better measures:

• Decision velocity (how quickly you move from discussion to action)
• Implementation rate (what percentage of meeting decisions actually get executed)
• Meeting aftermath (how much post-meeting clarification is needed)

Final Thoughts on Getting It Right

Good meetings feel slightly uncomfortable. There's productive tension. People leave with clear commitments they're slightly worried about delivering on.

If everyone's happy and relaxed after your meetings, you're probably not pushing hard enough.

And yes, this approach will upset some people initially. Some team members prefer the social aspect of long, meandering discussions. Some managers enjoy feeling like facilitators rather than decision-makers.

But your job isn't to run a social club. It's to get things done.

Start small. Pick one recurring meeting and apply these principles for a month. Measure the results. Then expand to others.

The productivity gains will speak for themselves.

---

Related Training Resources:

• Learning Network Blog - Professional development insights
• Further Resources - Meeting facilitation tools