Meetings

Whenever a service provider or official is not in office, the most probable reason will be a meeting.

If a study is done on the use of time by public officials, the major chunk of time will be consumed by meetings.

Meetings, when really required, are important to get more and better ideas, improve coordination and also involve stakeholders.

However, more often than not, most government meetings are avoidable as many of them are held over even minor issues.

Meetings seem to have ballooned in recent times and one suspects this is becoming a way to avoid accountability. There are decisions and risks that heads can take but often meetings are called.

In the Bhutanese context, a meeting does not also serve its intended purpose. Most often it is usually the boss doing the talking and agenda is accordingly decided. Those with a differing point may end up offending the boss, so they stay silent.

The public sector should look to the private sector to see when and how meetings should be conducted.

Private companies big and small do only a limited number of meetings, but these are usually productive and clear instructions and guidance is given.

The bulk of the time is spent in doing actual work or providing actual service.

This is not the case in government agencies.

Meetings in the government are like large fishing boats gathering everybody in the net whether they are required or not and wasting a lot of time.

It is time that government agencies should be careful in the numbers of meetings it has or the number of people involved and also the outcome.

The primary role of government agencies is to provide service and facilitate citizens and not consume a lot of time and resources in internal processes.

Meetings, when excessively done, is another form of red tape and file pushing at the cost of service delivery and efficiency.

People who enjoy meetings should not be in charge of anything.
Thomas Sowell