Uneasy Rhetoric

A few days ago, Carl suggested that we (as in society) should embrace the concept of walking meetings. Okay, he said they should exist. I’m the one that wants to get jiggy with that idea.

In my decade and a half of working life, I could probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve had an honest-to-God work-related walking meeting. When I worked in politics, they were a useful way to get out of earshot, get away from the fray, and get some perspective, but I don’t count the “meetings” we had when we walked across the street to get a cup of coffee. At my last job in Oregon we’d have the occasional walking meeting to get issues off our chests or just enjoy the rare sunshine. And by occasional I mean I can remember one, maybe two in five years.

As Carl points out, most meetings result in only about two or three things to do anyway. How many of us go to meetings with our notepad, diligently take notes, and then ignore them? Most of us, probably. How much better would it be if we struck out for a walk in the warm spring air and used the time to figure out the two or three next actions to move our project forward.

But, as entrepreneurial as we all want to be, some things seem nearly impossible to change. The current state of America’s health care system is one and the penchant for sit-down meetings is another.

Now, obviously, we can’t have departmental meetings with a dozen people all going for a walk. There’s too much distraction, too much noise. But how many departmental meetings are really just for the benefit of two or three people? And how many meetings of two or three people could just as easily be conducted standing up as sitting down?

Now that’s food for thought.