The first thing to consider is WhyToDoAnyMeetings at all?
How about ReducingTheMeetingsToTheBareMinimum? I prefer to have meetings with a clear set of objectives and the minimum set of people to arrive at a decision. Everyone in the meeting must have a saying. If somebody is not needed to reach a decision, he can be informed by e-mail. An InformativeMeeting is not a meeting but a WasteOfTime.
A meeting with one of the following properties is flawed:
Interesting. I have a number of documents here that must be verified by about six people. Each person is an expert in a different area covered by the documentation. They're all coming over here in a month to review the documents. They need to all be in the same room so that they can ask each other questions. This meeting will last days. Is this page suggesting that this meeting is a WasteOfTime, or am I missing something? -- BrentNewhall
A CollaborativeWorkSession may work, but I've never seen one that does. The main problem is that people can't think out loud without others interrupting. Even if they do not interrupt, there is one person thinking, the others are just disagreeing in silence. It takes a lot of time to agree on anything unless the time used for explaining point of view is short and there is lot of time for thinking things through in isolation, as for example for creating SpikeSolutions. -- GuillermoSchwarz
However: there are many reasons for meetings. The rules given apply to only some meetings
It seems to me that any meeting that meets criteria 2 and 3 (no more than 20 minutes and no more than 5 people) is probably a WasteOfTime. Any issue that can be resolved that quickly and with such a small number of people probably doesn't warrant a face-to-face meeting among the principals. You'll expend more effort scheduling it and traveling to it than attending it.
Best way of running meetings I have come across is RedCardMeetings AndrewCates
PatternsForEffectiveMeetings SuccessfulMeeting RedCardMeetings