Meetings: 45 minutes instead of an hour?

by Lainie Turner  |  May 12th, 2010
Coaching, Collaboration, Process, Tips-n-Tools


 

 
6
 
 

I sometimes use the free, online tool TimeBridge to schedule meetings among several people with busy schedules. It allows you to set a series of day/time options and let people pick what works or doesn’t work for them. That makes it easy to schedule the meeting at the time that works best for everyone.


TimeBridge isn’t the only meeting scheduler that offers this, so they need to differentiate themselves. Yesterday, TimeBridge launched a movement to change the way we think about meeting length: why not schedule for 45 minutes instead of a full hour? The announcement email noted:


In his book, “The Hamster Revolution for Meetings,” Mike Song reports that meeting attendees claim 43% of meeting time is wasted. When you consider the average professional is in 463 meetings a year we think it’s high time to take action.


To that end, TimeBridge has created a separate website: The 45 Minute Meeting Movement. In the first post, they offer “5 Rules of the 45 Minute Meeting”—rules that are not really new, but good reminders for making our shorter meetings more efficient. Further, TimeBridge has set a new default meeting length of 45 minutes instead of an hour when scheduling a meeting using their online tools.


What are some implications of holding 45 Minute Meetings? When you count the scheduling time and the time it takes to compile and send the notes you may have taken, is it fair to still bill the client for a full hour? Can they only work if they start right on the dot? And more importantly, does this leave enough time for eating cupcakes?


If you have ideas about making meetings efficient, Tweet your tips using the tag #45minmtg. You just might win a free copy of “The Hamster Revolution for Meetings: How to Meet Less and Get More Done” by Mike Song.

Lainie Turner

» View all posts
» View website
 
 

Reader comments (6)

 

Thank you, Lainie, for directing me to this helpful resource. I was able to use it immediately with a client today (whose meetings go on and on and on and on). GREAT stuff!!!


Bill Zipp | May 13, 2010

It is a great idea to keep things under an hour! Otherwise people can ramble! Agenda’s are a good thing.


Danielle Anthony | May 13, 2010

That settles it: My next client meeting is going to be 45 minutes. I track my time in 15-minute increments (I think many of us do), so it makes sense to schedule meetings the same way.


Jeff Jimerson | May 13, 2010

Generally, any movement that intends to keep me in meetings less will get my support.

When I have planned meetings, I look at the itinerary and cut one item from it. That usually kept me on schedule and concise.


Matt Riopelle | May 13, 2010

That’s a good idea, Matt. Another method I like—but often fail to do— is estimating blocks of time for each item on the agenda. If you spend too much time in one area, you’ll know another agenda item will take the hit. Kinda like setting a family budget with a cash system, where you start with several envelopes, each designated with a set amount of money. If you overspend on groceries you’ve got to pull cash from another envelope. Time is money when preparing a meeting agenda. :)


Jeff Jimerson | May 14, 2010

Wonderful topic, Lainie! We are best at handling simple business and easy decisions in the first and last 1/3 of the meeting. Brain power surges are at their peak in the middle. So 45 min. mtgs work well if stellar creative ideas surface in that 15 minutes. Loved Bill’s testimonial.


Jean Bonifas | May 17, 2010
 


Leave a reply