How to deal with a colleague who consistently schedules meetings that should be emails? [duplicate]

Question

I've got a great team to work in and I absolutely love my job, but one of my colleagues will continually insist on meetings, even/especially after a 'long' email discussion. They're often <= 30 minutes, but I feel they take me out of my flow.

I have a hunch that they prefer to handle these kind of situations in person, but given that they tend to be slightly dominant I find that I get intimidated into agreeing for the sake of closing the discussion, whereas I can make precise and defended arguments in an email.

I feel that this is a case of two conflicting personal interests in how to handle a situation, so I'm not sure how to resolve it.

Overall I'd prefer to have fewer personal meetings, so I can stay focused on my daily tasks. However, when those meetings inevitably occur, it'd also be nice to be able to stand my ground.

---

Some more information about the current situation:

I have a meeting planned for this Friday afternoon with this colleague (Colleague A) and a few others from a different team where we'll discuss progress on a project that we're working on. Colleague A now proposed to have a meeting beforehand to discuss and prepare our side of the progress before heading into the final meeting, but most of the items described in the agenda we have already covered in an email chain beforehand. So I feel like I'd go into the meeting and merely repeat what I wrote before.

Answer 1

How to deal with a colleague who consistently schedules meetings that should be emails?

In my experience, these types of people are best dealt with by insisting on an agenda for the meeting. Putting an agenda requirement up first before accepting the meeting may force the organizer to really think about what they want to get out of the meeting.

Hopefully, after a bit of reflection, they will come to the conclusion that you have already covered most of the items and the rest can be handled via email.

This will require a bit of discipline on your part, but the strategy can be effective. You can offer this up as a starting point if the organizer is unsure how to build one. Agenda Preparation

Try saying something like "I am very busy with my work, so in order to make sure we both get the most out of the meeting can you prepare an agenda so I can be properly prepared?"

Update based on the most recent edit: I see where you're going with this, but I don't see how you can get around it without looking like a jerk. You could try and say "Didn't we cover all this in the email chain?", but I would not expect it to get you very far.

One final thing you could try is talking to your manager. Explain to them how the topics are already covered via email, and if they aren't interested in conserving your time I think you will be out of luck.

Answer 2

even/especially after a 'long' email discussion.

I think the problem may be the long emails themselves. It would appear that your colleague doesn't believe they have enough quality information from the email chain. And frankly, I'm not surprised.

It has been my experience that more replies in an email chain leads to a higher likelihood that there is information that is patently wrong within the discussion. As the number of replies grows, the context of answers can get subtly or even significantly shifted. Different people answer the same question based on different contexts. Some respondents may not have read some of the interleaved responses and answer incorrectly.

In the end, it is critical that the communication model work for everyone in order to make sure the correct information is shared. If your colleague believes that meetings are necessary to clean up the information from the email chain, than maybe the problem isn't the meetings, but the email chain itself.

Answer 3

A very important piece is missing, why are they scheduling these meetings?

If they're a senior person, or someone whom you respect, I highly recommend you simply ask them. It's very likely that they have some reasoning behind doing so. Maybe you agree, maybe you don't, but understanding that may help you in your own career.

Speculation

Given the situation you describe - long email chains, with multiple participants, followed by a short meeting - I believe your colleague is attempting to keep everyone on the same page with the decisions that have been made.

While these meetings are annoying, the alternatives are much worse. As email chains get longer, and people start discussing many things, some participants will start to "tune out" the noise. This can lead to people missing that a decision has been made, and missing out on an issue they should have participated in. Having a short "wrap up" meeting can help prevent any stakeholder from feeling left out and gives everyone a chance to look at the solution as a whole.

Depending on the people involved, it's also possible that the meetings are not for you. You may be there to provide immediate answers for any questions the other people have - for example, if you're the one who proposed an idea. It's less about "does Guus know this?" and more about "other people need to support Guus, let's give them one last chance to ask questions".

---

If they're a junior person, you may want to use this as a teaching opportunity. Ask them the benefit they see from the meeting, and then show them a better way to get the same result.

---

And finally, if they're a similar level person who just has a different workflow than you, pick your battles. My recommendation would be to start declining some of the invites that you feel are very well answered in email. Since you're (effectively) asking them to compromise for your preferred workflow, you should try to meet them halfway.