Stay informed with free updates
Simply sign up to the Artificial intelligence myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.
The writer is author of ‘Think Big’, an associate professor at the London School of Economics and founding director of The Inclusion Initiative
When different generations of colleagues get together to discuss ideas and make decisions, there is usually no shortage of potential conflict.
But there is one thing Gen Z, millennials, Gen Xers and boomers agree on: that meetings themselves are often unproductive, unenjoyable and take up too much time.
In research my colleague Daniel Jolles and I did for the Inclusion Initiative at the London School of Economics, we asked more than 3,400 professional workers about their experiences of meetings. They found 35 per cent of meetings were unproductive — a judgment that was consistent across age groups.
Respondents felt the loudest voices spoke for too long, and with little substance. Our research found people in Gen X — now in their forties and fifties — spoke the most; Gen Z — the youngest cohort in the workplace, in their twenties — the least. Three-quarters of meetings did not include a voice from Gen Z at all. And as older people drone on, they create a “cascade” that drowns out younger colleagues’ contributions.
Such intergenerational friction is a problem, and not just for young employees’ sense of self-worth. Our research suggested that the annual cost of unproductive meetings in wasted hours could be in the region of $259bn across the US — that is about $9.6mn for an organisation employing 2,500 people. Letting meetings be dominated by the generation that speaks the loudest can mean companies are missing out on ideas and fresh perspectives.
So what can companies do to unlock the potential of group meetings? By following a few crucial mantras, and exploiting the potential of artificial intelligence, they can break through ingrained power dynamics and habits of not listening to get the most from everyone in the room.
To be truly inclusive, we found leaders need to adopt three approaches. They should show contributions are valued. They must make use of everyone’s ideas. And finally, they should be open to new perspectives.
This is easier said than done. AI can help by making some of the bad habits we bring to meetings more obvious. Natural language processing tools can flag, for example, if certain voices are dominating, and alert the meeting chair to problematic dynamics, including one generation or group being over-represented.
Tools are being developed that will nudge us during a meeting, saying for example that one person has dominated discussion in the past 10 minutes. For now, they more commonly allow the chair to ask an AI companion who has spoken the most.
AI transcriptions help make sure quieter (or younger) voices are recorded and reflected on later. The same applies to contributions made in the chat function for those who do not feel confident in person.
And while no technology can force us to listen, AI can make us more aware of a tendency to prioritise getting our own voices heard.
By summarising contributions during a meeting, AI tools such as Fathom AI’s meeting assistant or Grain can nudge participants to reflect and focus on speaking only when they have something to say — after all, who wants to hear their mediocre point repeated back to them? Generative AI can also suggest follow-up questions to dig deeper, allowing for better-quality discussions and encouraging quieter voices to expand on their ideas.
That could be better for all of us, turning meetings from “talking shops” to strategic forums where ideas are shared and refined.
Inclusive meetings, where everyone feels involved regardless of their generation, are associated with better employee performance. Executives who said their last important meeting was inclusive were more likely to report better financial performance at their company, according to our research. More strikingly, 86 per cent of employees who said the same were happy in their job, compared with 56 per cent who experienced non-inclusive meetings.
Mercifully, our research suggests meetings in which everyone is encouraged to speak are the same length as any other.
These are the early days of giving AI a seat at the table. I urge anyone running a meeting to experiment and find what works for them.
But if AI delivers on its promises, it could become one of the most valued voices in meeting rooms. After all, the most powerful voice is not necessarily the loudest; more often it is the one that best distils collective intelligence into actionable insights.
Read the full article here