I attended a lot of virtual meetings this week (Zoom, Skype, Teams) - some one on one, others small groups and one with multiple attendees  - and was juggling them all successfully with other work, until Friday when I lost the plot and was very late joining one and had to be reminded. This of course is discourteous and not acceptable, but it did make me think about meetings generally and our attitude to them, and indeed how best to run them.
 
I have experienced very different attitudes and practices over the years to meetings (of whatever kind). One IT company I worked for was so zealous about punctuality that if you were even two minutes late after travelling for three hours, you were not allowed to attend the meeting and had to sit outside as some kind of penitence.
 
By contrast I was also reminded by all the cyclists out on the local streets, often in family groups, not the usual Lycra clad racing experts, of a lawyer I encountered much earlier in my career when I worked for an oil company. I was leading a team negotiating some complex and sensitive joint venture with lawyers from other companies within the “Seven Sisters”, a common term for the seven transnational oil companies which dominated the global petroleum industry from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s, alluding to the seven mythological Pleiades sisters fathered by the titan Atlas. 
 
One of the lawyers who worked for Texaco and was approaching the end of his career rode an old bike around London (a far rarer site in those days before bikes with 20 or more gears and cycle lanes), dressed a bit eccentrically and (perhaps because of his cycling) often turned up late for our regular morning meetings in a central London hotel , for which he seemed completely unrepentant. He would just stroll in fifteen or more minutes late, get himself a coffee and then join the meeting as if nothing untoward had happened. I was very surprised and with the zealousness of one relatively new to the profession thought this was odd if not poor and reprehensible behaviour. However, he always made sensible and valued contributions and so his behaviour was tolerated if not condoned. 
 
I suspect it would not have been any different if we had been able to fast forward in time and hold a Skype meeting. Indeed, it may have been worst; the added challenge with virtual meetings is that they are very easy to set up and you can invite loads of people, some of whom may be a bit peripheral to the subject matter. With a physical meeting (remember those) you have to make much more effort to attend and have a lot more incentive to make sure it is relevant and worth your while. 
 
For encouraging timeliness at virtual meetings see this blog 5 Creative Ways to Get Your Team on Time to Meetings which has some suggestions for Once you have all the right technology in place, and workers are still late to meetings, what can you do to get them there on time? Or this articlewhich advises Encourage punctuality. As with physical meetings keeping to a set agenda and managing time will improve productivity and outcomes. Research has shown that about 45 minutes is the ideal length for any meeting. This becomes even more important for virtual meetings as they can be more tiring because attendees may only have audio to go by (rather than being able to also see each other).
 
Actually, on more mature reflection this is not just about punctuality but about how best to hold and run and manage virtual (or indeed any) meetings. If you have the right topic, timeframe and attendees and manage the meeting well attendance on time is much more likely. See this Harvard Business Review article What It Takes to Run a Great Virtual Meeting or this blog where a Google executive shares some ideas explaining the five best practices at Google that allow us to scale the culture of spontaneous creativity and productivity across offices.
 
See also this article The ultimate guide to remote meetings in 2020 which discusses technology, setting agendas, etiquette, engagement and even virtual water coolers! I think this is another manifestation of the “tea and cakes” meetings we have started to hold in my company which help keep our teams together even though we are all at home. 
 
Looking back with the benefit of hindsight I should have managed my Texaco colleague better recognising and allowing for his eccentricities. In these peculiar times when almost all meetings are virtual, I have noticed more socialising and general discussions at the start which perhaps replicate what happens naturally at the commencement of a face to face meeting. You rarely arrive in a room unpack and open your laptop, without a greeting or other polite discussion, and start with “Well let’s get going then”. That sort of behaviour will not endear you to the other participants in the meeting or make them inclined to take your point of view.
 
What I could have done at the start of our oil company meetings is to have a sort of grace period where we had a real tea and cakes and discussed things generally to allow for latecomers. These discussions are often invaluable not just as ice breakers but sometimes to identify issues that need to be discussed. Why not take the time to consciously do this in virtual meetings?
 
I know some criticise meetings of any kind - the management consultant Peter Drucker commented Meetings are a symptom of bad organization. The fewer meetings the better. 
 
However, I think this is wrong and that, in a professional business, meetings remain the bedrock of our operations. We need to strive to get them right, attend and get the most out of them as a means of collaborating with our colleagues – albeit virtually these days.
 
 As the American writer Oliver Wendell Holmes commented "Many ideas grow better when transplanted into another mind than the one where they sprang up."
 
While Charles Darwin observed "It is the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) that those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed." 
 
And Steve Jobs said "Great things in business are never done by one person; they're done by a team of people."

My star sign is Libra which according to Wikipedia is the seventh astrological sign in the Zodiac. It spans 180°–210° celestial longitude.[2] The Sun transits this sign on average between (northern autumnal equinox) September 23 and October 22.It is a sign of balance – the Roman poet Marcus Manilius once said that Libra was the sign "in which the seasons are balanced".
 
Perhaps because of this I have always been interested in the challenge of finding a balance between professional working life and private personal life. I know I have not always succeeded. Some years ago I recall claiming success in spending time with my family only for them to inform me “But dad when you worked in London you were never home before 8pm!”
 
Never has this work life balance been under more pressure than nowadays under the truly unusual circumstances we find ourselves in where for almost all of us our office is no more than twenty feet from our home living room and our bedroom – and sometimes is in those rooms. Those with children are not tasked with taking them to school, but actually provide the teaching and conducting their own working activities.
 
This article 5 Reasons Why Maintaining a Work-life Balance Is So Important defines work-life balance as being about separating your personal and professional lives without allowing one to encroach upon the other. Both are important, neither should be neglected. It says this is important for our mental and physical well-being and allows us to be more productive and to grow and develop.
 
This short article from the employment agency Reed gives a few reasons for maintaining a healthy work life balance.
 

• To avoid burning out.In addition to creating problems in your personal life, working too hard could also affect your career. After all, you never do your best work when you’re exhausted (and/or short-tempered). It also doesn’t look good from your boss’ perspective.
• To reduce stress:A person who doesn’t achieve a satisfying work/life balance can end up generating extra stress in their life. As we all know, stress, when allowed to linger, often causes side effects that can lead to health issues and personal distress.
• To fulfil your personal and career goals.Whilst it might seem like the harder you work, the more you’ll succeed – this isn’t always the case. In fact, not giving yourself a break could actually mean the quality of your work decreases, therefore jeopardising your progression opportunities.

 
It’s how to reach this state of balance that is most difficult especially nowadays. I like this article 20 tips for maintaining a healthy work-life balance which includes prioritise your time, plot some personal time, have set work hours, manage your time long term, make your workspace work for you, exercise and take time to make time (use time tracking software).
 
While this Forbes article 6 Tips For Better Work-Life Balance adds let go of perfectionism, limit time wasting activities and people, and notably “unplug” commenting:
 
The work day never seems to end. “There are times when you should just shut your phone off and enjoy the moment,” says Robert Brooks, a professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School and co-author of The Power of Resilience: Achieving Balance, Confidence and Personal Strength in Your Life. Brooks says that phone notifications interrupt your off time and inject an undercurrent of stress in your system. So don’t text at your kid’s soccer game and don’t send work emails while you’re hanging out with family, Brooks advises.
 
I suggest it is all about creating and respecting boundaries, even in our homes. I have always had a separate personal and work mobile and laptop even though I know technology permits me to combine these. I am even (albeit partly by accident) using different technology platforms with a MacBook and iPhone for personal use and a Windows laptop and Android phone for work. I am writing this blog on my kitchen table looking out at the sunny back garden – not in my home office which looks out on the front of the house.
 
Coming right up to date and the current challenges this Harvard Gazette Health & Medicine article poses and answers a number of questions around How can individuals strive for work/life balance as more and more of us find ourselves working in our homes, alongside all of the responsibilities of our home lives?It recognises that we are all on a steep learning curve here and that Teams should agree up front that they are all learning new ways of working in a challenging time and that people will make mistakes. Technology won’t work as planned. A spirit of goodwill and generosity during shaky, one-footed missteps will be essential as we all learn together.
 
It recommends Tools and rules help. Rules like regular schedules, regular meals, regular exercise, and regular sleep patterns are essentialand also notes that there is goodwill and humour even in these trying work times:
 
Two weeks ago, Harvard’s flexwork guidelines said that people couldn’t provide dependent care while teleworking. Now, some are beginning Zoom meetings by noting that at any minute a 4-year-old might come crashing through the room. President Larry Bacow commented that children are making our Zoom meetings some of the most entertaining in University history.
 
I suspect that after our current experience nothing in terms of work life balance will ever quite be the same again – once we have learnt to work from home with all its advantages and disadvantages, our attitude to the need for a daily commute to and from an office will be quite different.  Some will see it as a welcome respite, but others as a needless and stressful waste of time.
 
As the American educator and author Stephen R. Covey said "Most of us spend too much time on what is urgent and not enough time on what is important" while Hillary Clinton advised “Don’t confuse having a career with having a life.”
 
And to go right back to the start, as Mr Miyagi in the film the Karate Kid commented. “Better learn balance. Balance is key.”

As I sit in my garden this Easter holiday listening to the peaceful sounds of the birds singing in the trees and watching them and sometimes grey squirrels on the lawn, keeping a wary eye out for the cat,  I am minded by way of contrast of some of the very aggressive approaches to contract negotiation I have encountered.
 
I am here thinking in particular about complex service contracts such as IT outsourcing or facilities management contracts, but I suspect the principles have a more general application.
 
As these contracts are being procured and negotiated, I suggest that there is one cardinal principle which should be applied. Will this agreement enable the successful and timely delivery of services to the customer with a reasonable but not excessive return for the supplier? 
 
In order to achieve this ultimate goal of successful delivery and return I propose that the parties need to establish a co-operative and constructive relationship that should commence during the formation phases of the contract and continue to enable both sides to ride out the inevitable challenges that will always come in any complex delivery programme. 
 
“Winning” the negotiation, “scoring legal points” or “getting one over on the other side” are really irrelevant. However too often in private practice and in industry I have seen suppliers and customers (and their advisers) behave in ways like this that appear designed to avoid or even deliberately destroy any “partnership” approach. I have seen procurement advisers (a profession I greatly admire in general by the way) insisting price is all that matters and driving suppliers to what could literally be bankruptcy. I have watched aggressive lawyers in negotiations refusing to shift on any point, even when their clients want them to. Some companies refuse to even considering changing their view on a perfectly reasonable “ask” because they have a “policy” set in stone by their headquarters organisation – who of course are too remote and aloof to even be approached. I have reviewed contracts drafted by very competent lawyers that are so one sided as to be almost laughable, often supported by false contentions that these are “industry standard.”
 
See for example this Harvard Law School article 10 Hard-Bargaining Tactics to Watch Out for in a Negotiation which commences with:
 
Some negotiators seem to believe that hard-bargaining tactics are the key to success. They resort to threats, extreme demands, and even unethical behavior to try to get the upper hand in a negotiation.
 
In fact, negotiators who fall back on hard-bargaining strategies in negotiation are typically betraying a lack of understanding about the gains that can be achieved in most business negotiations. When negotiators resort to hard-bargaining tactics, they convey that they view negotiation as a win-lose enterprise. A small percentage of business negotiations that concern only one issue, such as price, can indeed be viewed as win-lose negotiations, or distributive negotiations.
 
Much more commonly, however, business negotiations involve multiple issues. As a result, these so-called integrative negotiations give parties the potential to create win-win outcomes, or mutually beneficial agreements. Business negotiators can negotiate by brainstorming creative solutions, identifying differences in preferences that can be ripe for tradeoffs, and building trust.
 
I also found this article which comments Subsequent to the 1980's, a lot of companies had a tendency to concentrate their negotiation training on aggressive tactics. Although the application of these tactics will often yield a short term result, we don't support using them in a professional business context. The reason we don't support their usage is because of both the long term damage that they will impact on your business relationships, and the dubious ethics of employing these manipulative tactics.
 
While this Forbes article provides some good advice on dealing with aggressive negotiators commenting that 
 
Aggressive types are projecting an image of what they think a negotiator should be, and they end up coming off as irritating or egotistical. These people like to be aggressive with deadlines and threats, but they don’t have a strong grasp on the underlying fundamentals of the negotiation. Aggression is their entire strategy.
 
Negotiation is all about preplanning, setting clear objectives, getting stakeholder buy-in, having confidence in yourself and your colleagues, and using the process to determine if you actually want and will benefit from a good business relationship with the other organisation you are dealing with. 
 
Agreeing successful contracts is about mutuality and give and take – any truly one sided agreement will end in tears. As Winston Churchill once said “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is what it also takes to sit down and listen.”
 
To repeat a quote I think I have used before, but is very relevant in this context We cannot negotiate with people who say what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable- John F Kennedy.
 
Here (as we all rewatch old movies) is an apt quote to conclude from Star Wars Episode II Attack of the Clones.
 
Anakin: When I got to them we got into aggressive negotiations.
 
Padme: Aggressive negotiations? What’s that?
 
Anakin: Ah, well, it’s negotiations with a lightsabre.
 
Sort of sums it up. Have a great Easter.

One of the most underrated professional skills is hearing that small voice in the back of your head that says “something’s wrong here”. Often there is no particular logic – just a feeling that all is not right.
 
I was looking at a draft document recently and whilst it all made apparent sense, one sentence drafted by somebody else did not quite work. I recognised this, but sent it out as a draft ignoring my instinct - and guess which part of the draft was questioned and proved not to be correct. I realised I had not properly understood the intended meaning, and had not properly questioned the contributing author.
 
It’s reliance on this “gut instinct” that can be really important and should definilty not be ignored like this. See this article Can You Really “Trust Your Gut”? which suggests there is actually some rational justification  This “gut feeling” is an instinctual response from your brain to protect you from making what it perceives to be the wrong decision. Your brain creates a mental map based on every experience that you’ve ever had and everything you have ever learned to create the foundation for which your brain makes decisions. 
 
Steve Jobs on a trip to India commented “The people in the Indian countryside don’t use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and their intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world. Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That’s had a big impact on my work.”  See this article. He also said “Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion.”
 
This Harvard Business Review piece supports the value of intuition, but says there are limitations and you need to apply logic and reason as well Intuition has its place in decision making—you should not ignore your instincts any more than you should ignore your conscience—but anyone who thinks that intuition is a substitute for reason is indulging in a risky delusion.
 
Actually, I think intuition is a product of practice and experience which hones your senses to when something is wrong – the patient in front of you actually has a serious illness masked by symptoms of something else. See this scientific article which comments In order to trust our intuition, we need to have had enough practice. Our intuitions are only as good as the database of patterns that we draw them from. So we need to have had sufficient experience noticing and revising patterns in order to have built up a database that is both robust and refined.
 
So the harder you work, the more you learn, the better your instinct is. Listening to that inner voice and emotion is then easier. 
 
As Albert Einstein again, unquestionably a great scientist who used logic and reasoning as the tools of his trade, once said The only real valuable thing is intuition. He also observed “I believe in intuitions and inspirations...I sometimes FEEL that I am right. I do not KNOW that I am.”
 
I suggest listening untutored, inexperienced instinct may not be so effective, but coupled with logic and reasoning and experience it is incredibly powerful. As the Indian monk, yogi and guru Paramahansa Yogananda advised “Intuition is the discriminate faculty that enables you to decide which of two lines of reasoning is right. Perfect intuition makes you master of all.”
 
Or put more succinctly by Oprah Winfrey Trust your instincts. Intuition does not lie.