Results

Effectiveness and Importance

What was the average effectiveness and importance score for everyone's meetings?
Person
Avg. Effective Score
Avg. Important Score
% of meetings was leader
1
JD
Joel Davis
4.0
3.0
0%
2
EK
Elise Keith
3.7
3.6
47%
3
LT
Lola Tseudonym
3.5
4.0
25%
4
AC
Al Chen
3.4
3.8
40%
5
MJ
Mary Jones
3.0
3.0
0%
6
JB
James Booth
2.8
3.4
80%
There are no rows in this table

What to Look For
Compare these ratings with the total amount of time spent in meetings shown in the previous reports. You may find that each person’s perceptions of meeting quality have more to do with their organizational level, job description, and role in the meetings they attend than with the overall time spent.

In fact, research repeatedly shows that
than meeting participants. And in case you’re wondering, this isn’t an issue with over-inflated egos, but rather a fundamental cognitive bias that impacts nearly everyone.
Created with Highcharts 9.3.2Avg. Effective ScoreAvg. Important ScoreJoel DavisElise KeithLola TseudonymAl ChenMary JonesJames Booth2.833.23.43.63.842.7533.253.53.7544.25

Next, look at the breakdown below for meetings that the team rates as important, but ineffective. Many teams rate recurring meetings this way. This indicates that it’s time to shake up how you run those meetings.

Also look for any meeting rated a 3 or less for importance. This indicates either a meeting that should be replaced by an
communication channel (email, chat, etc.) or a person who should be allowed to skip that meeting.

Finally, some team members will rate all their meetings with a 3 or above. This may indicate that their meetings work great, but it may also flag the
, where the rating reflects that person’s feelings about the meeting leader rather than the usefulness of the meeting to the team’s work.
Breakdown meetings by effectiveness and importance
6

👉
Next:

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.