Why Do Meetings Go in Circles — Even with the Best Intentions?

Most meetings don’t start badly: People show up on time, there is an agenda, everyone wants to move something forward. And yet, an hour later, there’s a strange feeling in the room: We talked a lot — but did we actually decide anything?

Sometimes we leave with a list of actions. Sometimes with more questions. Sometimes with quiet frustration.

And very often, what happened is surprisingly simple: We mixed up the problem, the options, and the solution.

When everything happens at once

In many meetings, we jump between:

• defining the issue,

• suggesting ideas,

• evaluating those ideas,

• questioning assumptions,

• and proposing concrete next steps

…all within the same ten minutes.

Someone says, “The real issue is customer response time.”

Someone else replies, “We could automate it.”

A third person says, “That won’t work because IT is overloaded.”

And then we’re back to discussing whether response time is really the problem.

Nothing is wrong with the people in the room.

What’s missing is structure.

The GROW model — and why it helps

One simple way to bring clarity is the GROW model, originally developed in coaching conversations (Whitmore, 2009).

It separates four stages:

• Goal – What are we trying to achieve?

• Reality – What is happening now?

• Options – What could we do?

• Will – What will we actually commit to?

  
  

What I find powerful about this model is not the acronym.It’s the discipline.

It forces us to stay with one layer at a time.

In meetings, we often try to define the goal while already arguing about options. Or we evaluate options before we’ve really agreed on what success looks like.

No wonder we go in circles.

Diverging and converging — and why timing matters

Design thinking talks about something similar in a different language: divergence and convergence. (Brown, 2008).

First, you diverge:You open up the space. You explore. You generate possibilities.

Then, you converge:You narrow down. You choose. You decide.

The mistake many teams make is not that they fail to generate ideas — or that they fail to decide.

It’s that they try to do both at the same time.

When someone proposes an idea and it is immediately criticised, the room tightens.

People stop contributing. Energy drops.

On the other hand, if we stay in exploration mode for too long without deciding, people feel drained. Meetings become long. Momentum slows.

The rhythm between divergence and convergence is what creates movement and makes the meeting effective in the end.

Why structure feels restrictive — but it isn't

Interestingly, people often resist this kind of structure.

They say:

• “Let’s just talk openly.”

• “We don’t need a model.”

• “We know what we’re doing.”

And yet, without a shared structure, the loudest voice often wins.

Or the most urgent issue takes over. Or we default to the safest solution.

Structure is not there to limit creativity. It is there to protect it.

When everyone knows which phase we are in, conversations become lighter, not heavier.

And underneath it all — a human dynamic

If we’re honest, meetings are not just about logic. They are about identity, influence, and safety.

Jumping to solutions quickly can feel efficient — but sometimes it is also a way to reduce discomfort.

Staying with the problem can feel slow — but often it’s where clarity begins.

The challenge is less about intelligence and more about patience.

A different way to think about meetings

Perhaps the question is not:

“How do we make meetings more efficient?”

Perhaps it is:

“Have we agreed what problem we are solving — and are we ready to move to the next stage?”

Sometimes a single sentence can change the direction of a meeting:

• “Are we still defining the problem?”

• “Are we generating options right now?”

• “Have we decided — or are we still exploring?”

  
  

That small pause often saves 30 minutes of circular discussion.

A final reflection

Meetings go in circles not because people are incompetent.

They go in circles because thinking in general is messy. Because we care. Because we all want to contribute. Because we want to solve things quickly.

The discipline of separating problem, options, and decision is not about control.

It is about respect — for time, for clarity, and for each other’s energy.

Next time you find yourself in a meeting that feels stuck, you might simply ask:

Where are we right now? And where do we actually need to be?

Sometimes that is enough to move forward.

References

Brown, T. (2008) ‘Design Thinking’, Harvard Business Review, 86(6), pp. 84–92.

Whitmore, J. (2009) Coaching for Performance: Growing Human Potential and Purpose. 4th edn. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.