Case Studies

Intentional Meetings®

Intentional meetings drive success

Case Summary

Twenty-five years ago, the cost of unproductive meetings in the U.S. was $60 billion annually. What’s that figure today?

With today’s glut of video meetings, the waste is so vast that no researcher dares to make a definitive claim on the total cost. An educated, conservative guesstimate is at least $180 billion in waste in the U.S. alone.

Workers and their leaders experience the drain of too many meetings with too little impact every day. Today’s remote and hybrid meetings are rife with a lack of focus, decisions that don’t stick, social loafing, disruptive spectators, wasted time, and simmering interpersonal conflicts.

This case study tells our client’s story. An 12,000-employee medical technology company engaged Bridging the Difference® to help them resolve the underlying causes of meeting inefficiencies, frustrations, and unproductive conflict while increasing trust and a sense of shared purpose.

One firm spent significant time and money in several attempts to improve their meeting culture, to no avail. But after a strategic investment with Bridging the Difference®, they resolved the underlying causes of meeting frustrations, inefficiencies, and unproductive conflict.

With Intentional Meetings®, this firm’s leaders reduced their number of meetings by up 40 to 70% (depending on the type). The meetings that remained were 66% shorter.
In addition to gaining back valuable time, these leaders and their teams experienced:
  • Higher-quality team member contributions.
  • More productive issue-resolution conversations.
  • Quality decisions made in the first meeting that stuck after the meeting.

Get the fix that sticks.
Get Intentional.

Team to Win®

Case Summary

R&D projects are complex, and technical excellence is not enough.

A project leader must also excel in building a team that stays engaged and motivated. Usually, the team is a group of people who are not the project leader’s direct reports; each person has a “home team” apart from the project. So, a project leader walks a tightrope, seeking to enlist team members to prioritize the project and put its tasks and metrics first without direct-report accountability.

Teaming is an investment of energy and attention. Sometimes it’s hard work. However, the job of high-quality teaming belongs to the team and its leader. How do you get that shift in accountability? You enlist the people who have the most to gain from good teaming—those on the team—to see how their contributions either help or hinder the team’s effectiveness.

This case study tells our client’s story. A specialty chemical and medical device manufacturer engaged with Bridging the Difference® to create a Team to Win® culture with strategic R&D project team leaders.

With Team to Win®, these leaders developed continuous and adaptive responsiveness. As a result, they successfully brought their projects to closure, on time and under budget.
Their team members:
  • Developed a tendency to own a problem versus blame others.
  • Became quicker to assess a problem when it came up and better organized at developing a plan to solve it.
  • More quickly took the right actions to solve problems.
  • More readily stepped up to take ownership of tasks versus waiting for the project leader to assign tasks to them.
  • Engaged in more positive, more enjoyable, and more respectful personal interactions.
  • Improved their communications across the team and with all stakeholders, including senior leadership.

Do you want to Be the Team to Win®?