Why the way we start a meeting matters more than we think

A few years ago, I stood in front of a group of senior managers and was about to start a presentation on leadership.

The culture in the organization was serious and performance-oriented. People delivered, the pace was fast, and there wasn't much room for small talk. They sat ready, waiting for me to begin the presentation.

Instead, I suggested that we start with a brief check-in round.

You could almost hear the skepticism in the room.

I briefly explained that everyone just had to answer one question and that we would keep it short. The question was simple: "Something that has shaped you."

There was silence. Some looked down. Others looked at their watches. After a moment, one person volunteered and began.

Ten minutes later, the mood had changed. There was some laughter. People were less tense. They were actually listening to each other. And when we moved on to the day's program, the group worked in a completely different way than when we started.

It struck me again how much difference the first few minutes of a meeting can make.

Not because a check-in in itself solves anything. But because it changes the quality of the conversation, and thus the quality of the work that follows.

Today, most teams work on tasks where solutions cannot simply be looked up in a manual. The tasks are complex, the direction is adjusted along the way, and no one has the whole picture on their own. This means that the quality of collaboration becomes crucial.

And collaboration does not happen automatically just because people are sitting in the same room.

If people don't feel comfortable speaking up when something is unclear or when they disagree, decisions often suffer. If a few people speak while others hold back, perspectives are lost. And if meetings start while half the participants are still mentally stuck in their inboxes, conversations become superficial.

This is precisely why the concept of psychological safety has become so central to research on teams in recent years. Professor Amy Edmondson from Harvard has shown that teams perform better when people dare to ask questions, admit mistakes, and raise doubts. Google's extensive Project Aristotle pointed to the same thing: the best teams were not necessarily those with the most talented individuals, but those where everyone had a say and where it felt safe to participate.

A check-in is just one way to create that kind of space. The point is not the method, but that people have the opportunity to settle into the space together and become present before work begins.

I often find that managers are looking for new tools to make better decisions or strengthen collaboration. But sometimes it's not about more methods. It's about the quality of the conversations that are already taking place.

How do we start meetings? Who speaks? Who listens? What is said out loud, and what is never said?

My role in these kinds of situations is rarely to provide the answers. Rather, it is to help groups create space for the conversations they otherwise don't get to have in their busy everyday lives. When the pace slows down a bit and people actually start listening to each other, it often becomes easier to work through the complex issues afterwards.

And perhaps that is why the start of a meeting means more than we think.

Not because the first exercise is crucial in itself, but because it sets the tone for everything that follows.