Work moves only between recurring sessions. Actions picked up right before the meeting, clarified during it, stalled until the next slot. Calendar inertia, not flow.
Why this matters: Classic Lean waste: delays, over-processing, rework, bloated WIP. Decisions depend on people who may or may not attend. Leadership capacity burns on synchronisation rather than value. We’ve all seen it.
What to observe:
- Ratio of calendar wait time to touch time (often 10:1 or worse in knowledge work)
- Actions dormant until day-before-meeting panic
- Same decisions revisited across multiple sessions
- Invite lists that grow, never shrink
Typical quotes:
- “Can we park that for the Monday meeting?”
- “I’ll wait until Sarah’s back before we decide.”
- “We need everyone in the room.”
Diagnosing with CIRCA
The meeting-to-meeting pattern signals turbulence. CIRCA names which condition drives it:
| Condition | Meeting signal | Observable behaviour |
| Complex | Meetings become default integrator | Sprawling invites, status meetings that relay information, work stalls without group sync |
| Insecure | Meetings provide cover | People anchor actions to next meeting rather than clear guardrails; no one acts without explicit sign-off |
| Rapid | More meetings = “staying on top” | Short, frequent check-ins that still don’t resolve blockers; no protected time between sessions |
| Contradictory | Meetings arbitrate trade-offs | Same decisions revisited repeatedly; recurring forums exist to renegotiate never-aligned commitments |
| Anxious | Meetings manage nerves | Pre-meetings, re-meetings, oversight sessions; “if not discussed, not safe to do” |
Critical insight: Insecure often masquerades as poor process. Leaders apply Agility fixes (better meeting hygiene, async tools) when the real condition is fear. Different condition, different lever.
What This Is NOT
Not poor meeting skills. This isn’t about facilitation training or better agendas. System design forces meetings as the only mechanism for progress.
Not too many meetings. Volume is a symptom, not the pattern. Some high-meeting cultures flow well; some low-meeting cultures stall constantly.
Not a calendar problem. Blocking focus time won’t help if decision rights remain unclear and psychological safety stays low.
Practical Diagnostics
Value stream mapping: Map work from request to delivery. Mark where meetings trigger progress. Measure calendar wait time ÷ touch time. In most knowledge work, you’ll find 80%+ time spent waiting for the next meeting.
Calendar audit: Review 3 weeks. For each recurring meeting ask: “What tangible decision or artefact leaves this meeting? Could it exist without the meeting?” Track actions that sit dormant until day-before.
CIRCA heat map: For each condition, list 3-5 observable meeting behaviours. Where do patterns cluster? This reveals which condition to address first.
CLEAR Interventions
Once CIRCA diagnosis is clear, CLEAR provides the response:
| Lever | Intervention | Micro-move |
| Clarity | Define decision rights, escalation paths, no-meeting rules | Publish a one-page “who decides what” for your team within 2 weeks |
| Learning | Treat meeting design as experiment | Remove one recurring meeting for 4 weeks; measure lead time and satisfaction |
| Empathy | Build alternative connection channels | Replace one status meeting with office hours or async check-in within 2 weeks |
| Agility | Shift to on-demand, flow-tied touchpoints | Move from weekly status to daily 10-min huddle around visible board within 1 week |
| Resilience | Enable progress when key people absent | Document fallback decision mode (consent-based or default-proceed) within 2 weeks |
Guardrail pair: Meeting count and lead time. If meetings drop but lead time rises, you’ve removed the wrong ones. If both drop, you’ve found flow.
Mini-Vignette*
Before: Programme team, 8 people, 23 hours/week in meetings. Lead time request-to-delivery: 14 days. ThroughFlow: 62%.
Move: CIRCA scan revealed Insecure as dominant condition—team sought cover through meetings because decision rights were unclear. Applied Clarity lever: published decision rights matrix, defined “no-meeting defaults” for routine decisions.
After (6 weeks): 11 hours/week in meetings. Lead time: 8 days. ThroughFlow: 74%. Team reported higher confidence acting without explicit sign-off.
* A mini-vignette is a compressed case example that shows intervention impact in three beats:
Before → Starting state with quantified metrics (hours, lead time, ThroughFlow)
Move → What you diagnosed and what single lever you applied
After → Outcome with same metrics, typically within 4-6 weeks
The format makes results scannable and credible without narrative padding. Readers see the delta, not the story.
Getting Started This Week
- Pick one critical value stream. Map where meetings trigger progress.
- Run CIRCA scan—which condition shows strongest signal?
- Choose one CLEAR lever. Design a 2-4 week experiment.
- Track: lead time, ThroughFlow, meeting hours, Human Pulse.
- Iterate or rollback based on signals, not feelings.
The aim isn’t abolishing meetings. It’s ensuring they’re the right tool for the right moments—complex sense-making, genuine collaboration, relationship-building—not routine status or decisions that clear guardrails could handle.
Calendar inertia is system design. Diagnose the condition. Apply the lever. Measure what changes.
The blog post structure deliberately mirrors the logic in the book, Thriving in Turbulence. CIRCA-CLEAR positions itself as operational, not academic. Tools leaders can run this week, not theory to study:
Pattern first. Name what’s happening before explaining why. Readers recognise their situation before receiving advice.
CIRCA diagnosis. Map the pattern to conditions. Different conditions require different levers—this prevents the common failure of applying Agility fixes to Insecurity problems.
“Not this” disambiguation. Boundary-setting that prevents misapplication. The book uses these boxes throughout to deconfuse similar-looking patterns.
Observable indicators. If it can’t be seen, measured, or tried by Friday, it doesn’t make the page. Quotes, behaviours, metrics—not abstract concepts.
CLEAR interventions with micro-moves. Concrete actions with timeboxes. “Do A so B happens within C weeks.”
Guardrail pairs. Speed metric paired with quality metric. Prevents optimising one dimension while breaking another.
Mini-vignette. Before → Move → After with quantified deltas. Evidence that the intervention works, compressed for scannability.
The blog becomes a gateway to the framework. Readers who find value here recognise the same diagnostic rhythm in the book. Those who apply the micro-moves experience practice-first learning. The 60% who misdiagnose learn faster than those who read theory first.
Let me know your thoughts. Do consistent formatting across blog and book builds pattern recognition. Hope so, that’s the point.
Leave a Reply