Meetings outside core hours

[Geezabreak82]

Over the past twenty years I've worked in a variety of organisations that operate a flexible working system with core hours. It tends to mean that I can do my contracted hours with flexibility between 7am and 7pm, but that I am expected to always work the core hours of 10-12 in the morning and 2-4 in the afternoon. Different places I've worked have differed on how strict they are on people stepping away from work during those core hours, but they have all had them in place.

Today I was trying to set up a meeting with a colleague who said she is only prepared to have work meetings during those core hours. She expects to have no work meetings before 10am, between 12-2 and after 4pm EVER! I'm totally prepared to be flexible on when we meet, work around her commitments and make sure the meeting doesn't eat into her lunch break, but I was really surprised to hear that she felt so strongly that meetings should never take place outside of our core hours. Since we are both contracted to do seven hours per day that means she expects to work three hours every day with no meetings. I've checked our staff policies and they provided no clarity on who is right in this situation so I am curious about the experiences of other people who have worked under a similar system do you think...

YABU - it's wrong to expect a colleague to agree to a meeting outside of our core hours, even if we will both be working at that time with no prior engagements

YANBU - as long as both sides are comfortable it's fine to hold a meeting outside of core hours

I think she’s misunderstood. Like you say, core hours are when everyone has to be around. But if you are both planning your working day to include more of your contracted hours in the middle bit, or earlier, or later, there’s no reason at all you shouldn’t meet then. It would probably be harder to arrange larger meetings outside of core hours - with big groups of 20 people, say - as they might not all be working then - but we would still be expected to be flexible about that in our org.

Is she just trying to manage her time? By only accepting meeting within core hours, it means she always has 3 hours to do her actual work. It's a nightmare when your day fills up with meetings & you get nothing else done

YANBU. Core hours are fine but meetings do happen outside them.

@Jammysod

Is she just trying to manage her time? By only accepting meeting within core hours, it means she always has 3 hours to do her actual work. It's a nightmare when your day fills up with meetings & you get nothing else done

This was my first thought too.

I agree with @Jammysod

Things have changed over last two years with Covid and diary gets clogged up with endless zoom and team meetings.

We're being advised to try and keep diary clear at some points so you can actually get on with work !

She maybe trying to manage her diary more effectively.

People see back to back meetings as some sort of badge of honour and importance. I like what she’s saying, those 4 hours will probably get filled up straight away and that is more than enough meetings. I’d support reducing all meetings to 25 minutes - get in, be productive, then leave.

And don’t get me started on meetings without a purpose or agenda

She's wrong. She has every right to ask to reschedule if the time doesnt work vs her flexed hours but she cannot blanket refuse a meeting in the non core hours. Her calendar should be updated for at least two weeks in advance to show which hours she is unavailable, if she is not prepared to spontaneously flex to accommodate meetings, so you can choose a time that suits her.

If it is a mandatory meeting for a group of people, to avoid endless shuffling in the calendar, those are easiest to schedule in core hours and I would tell her you save your core hours for those kinds of meetings so simple 1:1 meetings youprefer to book in non-core hours. Cc your manager into an email to her and give her a choice of times. Also ask her to keep her calendar updated blocking out the times she is not working; this is reasonable and allows other people to plan their work around her.

She's being ridiculous, unless she's not working her hours! Is it more than the two of you? Unless you're her line manager send her your times you can meet and let her get on with it
If you're her line manager then she needs to explain why she's being restrictive with her availability

@AgnesNaismith

People see back to back meetings as some sort of badge of honour and importance. I like what she’s saying, those 4 hours will probably get filled up straight away and that is more than enough meetings. I’d support reducing all meetings to 25 minutes - get in, be productive, then leave.

That’s what we do. 30 min meeting have been changed to 25 and 60 min meetings changed to 50 mins. It stops all the faffing at the beginning, when before we’d wait 5 minutes for someone to arrive. Now we just start and they have to catch up. Gives time between meetings.

@AgnesNaismith

People see back to back meetings as some sort of badge of honour and importance. I like what she’s saying, those 4 hours will probably get filled up straight away and that is more than enough meetings. I’d support reducing all meetings to 25 minutes - get in, be productive, then leave.

I agree. I have colleagues who you can tell are chuffed to bits that their presence is required at so many meetings, they must be sooooo important!

The reality is that I work for an organisation that has far too many pointless meetings and 'collaboration' sessions which are utterly pointless and have such a negative effect on productivity. It drives me mad.

I'd say she hasn't understood what core hours means.
Anything to do with the job can be organized between 7am and 7pm. Core hours is when staff should be doing their job.
She's definitely trying to manage her diary efficiently. To give herself as much free time as possible! CF.

We have the same core hours and it’s just not possible to restrict meetings to those 4 hour slots if everyone has to squeeze them into that time. She’s being very unreasonable. Core hours are to make sure that people can broadly work hours to suit around other commitments, and to make sure they take a lunchbreak. Not to avoid meetings. I also struggle trying to get into peoples diaries because of it, which means you’re less productive. Tbh I normally end up just talking to people over lunch rather than formally organising a meeting.

My workplace is very similar and I have never heard of anyone doing this. I understand the need to have meeting-free time but holding all meetings during core hours would mean that they are spread throughout the day and wouldn’t leave any large blocks of time for other work.

I work under the same flexible working pattern and my manager always arranges team meetings within core hours as they know everyone will definitely be working and she never has to reschedule. I suppose it depends on how many meetings are needing to be arranged throughout the week
but OP is there a reason you can't arrange meetings within the core hours?

YANBU. Are these meetings just with her or others too?

I’d still be scheduling meetings in office hours (9-5 except 12-1) and the onus is then on her to attend.

This isn’t right, during her working day she should be available - I would understand if she said she couldn’t do after 4 or before 10 but refusing between 12-2 is bizarre! She’s at work!

YANBU.
I don't organise meetings before 9 even though I usually start at 8 unless I know the other person works those hours as well, and I generally avoid 4.30pm as it's a rubbish time for a meeting, but other than that as long as the other person has a lunch break ( I always put a meeting in my calendar for that for myself) then she's being paid to work, and if part of that involves a meeting with you then she should attend.

Try being a teacher - my core hours are 8.30 - 3.30 with a 45 minute break in the middle. Our meetings have to take place outside of those hours.

@eldora

YANBU. Are these meetings just with her or others too?

I’d still be scheduling meetings in office hours (9-5 except 12-1) and the onus is then on her to attend.

We have a similar flexible working set-up to the OP and this is the norm with us: meetings between 9-5 with some time free over lunch.

She's being ridiculous and has misunderstood core hours.

@Jammysod

Is she just trying to manage her time? By only accepting meeting within core hours, it means she always has 3 hours to do her actual work. It's a nightmare when your day fills up with meetings & you get nothing else done

Yes, but by doing this she's also being very controlling about everyone else's time.

It's good to put meetings during core hours to allow people to be flexible, but especially if you work with lots of different teams it's not always going to be possible - in which case you work out shared working patterns and find a good slot.

Good for her. They are very short core hours, but she wants the flexibility of having those and arranging the rest of her time around it. Frankly? more people should be doing that

I had a boss once who insisted on meetings at the end of his working day. So 7:30 to 8:30 pm. And I always said "nope" but was always given the choice of that or no job. But i reacted the same way every time. Then we got a new HR director and our calendars were automatically blocked outside of 9am - 4pm. Any meetings that were arranged outside that time were flagged. And 99% of the time permission refused. It was FANTASTIC.

I think she's being very sensible.

If she doesn't put boundaries in place, she'll be stuck in meetings all day and won't ever be available to get on with her work.

Frankly, I think more people should say no to pointless meetings

I used to have a client with loads of meeting rooms etc, for the various onsite visits etc. And in each one was a 9 point (I think) plan for meetings that must be adhered to. And if 3 or more of the points weren't being met, anyone at all at that meeting, no matter how junior, was allowed to alert the room and it was to either get back on track or stopped.

Max meeting length 25 minutes, room bookings for 30 at a time unless there were special requirements. The list included things like: an agenda had been distributed beforehand, there was an actual meeting title and goal, there was a meeting leader to keep it on track, there was an official minute taker and minutes to be distributed within 24 hours, phones on the table and unused, laptops closed except for the person presenting the slides, etc etc

it worked really well and i was in at least 2 which were brought back on track by someone else in the room.

And anything outside of 9-5 only with special permissions.