Work Why Are Meetings so

Work

Why are meetings so frustrating for most people?

Workplace meetings are the bane of many employee's existences, and according to Deborah Tannen, this is because of the fact that meetings are more often characterized by miscommunication than the real and effective transmission of information. No place is riper for a clash of workplace cultures than a meeting that brings together people from different departments, companies, and backgrounds. Tannen cites the example of a female physician at a hospital who became increasingly incensed at a male colleague who was intent, the woman felt, upon pointlessly picking at her statements, and was taken aback rather than flattered when he praised her later for her expert rebuttals (Tannen 60). Tannen uses this as an example of how women use cooperation and conciliation, or relationality, in dialogue, while men prefer confrontation, even argument for the sake of argument.

This example highlights not simply the differences between male and female communication, but also the fact that the modern workplace brings together people who come from a greater variety of cultures and backgrounds than ever before, and yet everyone must come together to achieve the same objective during a meeting with a set agenda. A man might find his female supervisor's style a waste of time, because she allows everyone present to speak, a woman might think a male leader unnecessarily provokes confrontation -- or someone from the South might think a Northerner overly brusque. With the increased globalization, as described by Richard W. Judy and Carol D'Amico Workforce 2020, a person from Japan might bring completely different expectations to the table as to how meetings should be conducted than a resident of Italy, yet both workers may find themselves the member of the same company after a merger.

When there is cultural cohesion, quite often meetings are not frustrating -- in one female law firm described by Tannen, all of the women made decisions collectively, shared profits, and stressed 'listening' rather than confrontation (Tannen 125). This style runs counter to relations at many male-led law firms, where confrontation is a prized skill. Both approaches can work, although it should be noted that the fact that people do not seem to listen to one another, or use different cultural cues to indicate listening and attention, is perhaps the most articulated reason why workers of both genders loathe meetings. Tannen suggests that the stereotypically male workforce may have much to learn from women's ways of relating to others during meetings. Hearing all parties, repeating what the other person has said before openly confronting a potential opponent, and other methods of connection characterized as feminine may be the best way to deal with diversity, as this will allow more points-of-view to be aired.