Way back in September of 2001, I was called into the offices of a meeting production company. The situation was serious. One of their clients, a large professional services firm, had just called to cancel a multi-million-dollar meeting in the aftermath of the events of 9/11. This was a huge piece of business. The progressive production company decided that it would respond not by simply saying "Okay," but rather by offering a realistic, cost- effective, and safe alternative to canceling the meeting.

The production company called me in as an expert in collaborative technologies and asked me to help them think through how they could suggest ways the client could hold the meeting virtually. We designed some intriguing alternatives and presented them to the client—all wrapped in the context of explaining the importance of moving ahead with that particular meeting from a business standpoint. The client, in turn, presented the ideas to the senior executives who were planning to cancel. Surprisingly, they decided (on the basis of hearing our argument) that the meeting was simply too important to cancel and they decided to go ahead with the face-to-face event.

In the current economic circumstances, I have been hearing stories of how meetings are being canceled right and left. One production company executive told me that one of her clients had even paid a $500,000 cancellation fee. That's a huge amount of money to just drop into the incinerator. Many meetings industry veterans I've spoken with see these cancellations taking place primarily because of fear—not because of sound business judgments or measured risk assessment.

Now, it would be easy to exhort clients (internal or external) to simply refrain from canceling. But when people respond on the basis of emotion, even the most logical arguments can fall on deaf ears. Simply pointing out the value of meetings in general is not enough. We have to do that, of course, but the argument's effectiveness will be directly proportional to its specificity. That is, if we are going to make the case for a meeting's value, we need to be very specific about the value of that particular meeting. How will it contribute to adding revenue? Maintaining customers? Building the organization's value proposition? All of these things must be included in the discourse. Obviously, it helps if the meeting planner has done a prior ROI assessment of the expected value of the meeting. Then it is much easier to explain why they shouldn't cancel.

According to Dr. Jack Phillips, chairman of ROI Institute, "Some meeting planners are preventing cancellation by showing data accumulated from the last meeting which illustrate the value and, in some cases, the ROI of the meeting. In lieu of last year's results, it is also possible to forecast ROI, and this might be very convincing data to prevent an executive from canceling the meeting."

Whether or not you have access to such data, as a planner, you need to be ready to offer alternatives to cancellation. Here are some questions to ask when a meeting may be canceled:

1. Can we cut the number of face-to-face attendees without canceling?

This is one way of reducing costs and still saving the meeting. Some of the people planning to attend face-to-face could attend via virtual means such as webcasts, threaded discussions, podcasts, or even simple conference calls. You might even use social network analysis software to determine who the best candidates are for the smaller face-to-face meeting.

2. Could we break the meeting into a series of smaller regional meetings that could be held on the same day?

A combination of interactive videoconferencing and face-to-face interaction at the regional level might be an alternative. These meetings might even be held on site at the company's own facilities.

3. Could we change the meeting design?

Is it possible to scale back on some production elements (e.g. expensive entertainment) and instead come up with inexpensive ways for people to interact or work collaboratively at the meeting (e.g. host an unconference)? When I design meetings, people are often surprised at how energetic, engaging, and inexpensive some of the interactive activities are.

4. Could participants join the meeting from their desks?

Interactive desktop tools have become increasingly useful and easily accessible. Second Life might provide an alternative mechanism for holding both a trade show and interactive breakouts—all from the comfort of the participants' desks. Instead of replacing the face-to-face meeting, this type of connection could be used with a meeting that has been made smaller, as mentioned in question number 1.

5. Could we postpone the meeting?

If cancellation seems inevitable, look at the alternatives for immediately rescheduling—even if that date is six to nine months out. In the current economy, six months could present significant changes in the business climate and immediate rescheduling could save significant cancellation penalties.

6. Could we alter the design of the meeting to include people who might immediately impact our organization's bottom line?

This is a question that is particularly relevant to corporate planners. Let's say your meeting was originally designed as strictly an internal event. You should consider whether you could broaden the scope of the meeting to include additional stakeholders like customers (to add revenue) or suppliers (to decrease costs) whom you might not have initially planned to invite.

You might be able to augment the original purpose for the meeting by sharing information at the meeting that would be of interest to customers or suppliers and having them work with your employees to brainstorm opportunities for working together in new ways.

7. Is it a good idea to cancel the meeting?

It's also important to at least consider the fact that maybe, just maybe, we should cancel the meeting. Many meetings are held for bad reasons (e.g. "We've always held this meeting quarterly" or "We want to announce some things" or "We love coming to the islands in December" etc.) This might be a good time to rethink the meetings we have scheduled and determine if they're necessary. If not, then we should take some of that budget and reallocate it to other meetings that are well-aligned with strategy and that might be in danger of cancellation. In other words, we need to do a little "portfolio management" on our scheduled meetings.

These are complex times. As I mentioned in a November 2007 Harvard Business Review article that I co-authored with David Snowden, conditions of complexity call for high levels of human interaction in organizations. Meetings are one of the most important tools a leader has for tapping into the intellectual capital of an organization and for building the social capital necessary to weather tough times.

Canceling an important meeting in a time of increased uncertainty is usually not only a bad idea, but it also could be an idea that strikes at the very heart of your organization's ability to adapt and thrive. Sit back, take stock, put your money where it can do the most good, and get creative in redesigning your meeting so your participants can still make connections, be informed, and get engaged.

Mary Boone is president of Boone Associates, located in Essex, CT. She is an expert in interactive meeting designs and has been consulting in the field of organizational communication and collaborative technologies for more than two decades. She is the author of Managing Interactively (McGraw-Hill), Leadership and the Computer (Prima Publishing), and numerous other articles and publications. Her 2007 Harvard Business Review article (with David Snowden) won an award from the Academy of Management. If you have any questions about this article, please contact her at mary@maryboone.com.

Originally published Feb. 1, 2009

For more ideas, tips, and tools for better meetings and events, get Successful Meetings' weekly e-newsletter delivered to your inbox. This page is protected by Copyright laws. Do Not Copy