InspiredSTEMPEOPLE · PERFORMANCE · IMPACTBook a 20-minute callCase study 5 · Mission Mindset meetings
Engineering and project delivery
A shared meeting language
The engagement at a glance
Average meeting duration
31 minutes shorterWithin three months · ongoing target: 55 minutes
Before The starting point
Project concerns were not reaching the right people early enough. Less experienced leaders could be led by suppliers, and design changes agreed in one discipline caused problems elsewhere. Meetings were long, expensive and unclear about purpose, ownership and the decisions needed to protect delivery and margin.
After Reported after
Average meeting duration fell from 1 hour 43 minutes to 1 hour 12 minutes within three months, alongside clearer actionable outcomes. The ongoing target was 55 minutes. Employees reported greater engagement and confidence that leaders would listen first and give solution-focused feedback. Project-risk and client-satisfaction scores rose by at least 23% in every assessed area after six months.
The starting need and the changes reported.
Meetings averaged 1 hour 43 minutes.
The average fell to 1 hour 12 minutes within three months; the target remained 55 minutes.
People could fear becoming the focus of a problem when speaking up.
Employees reported greater engagement and more confidence in leaders listening first.
Changes across disciplines caused delays and pressure on P&Ls.
A shared meeting framework made project direction, responsibilities and risk controls explicit.
Inspired worked individually and then collectively with the executive committee on psychological safety and its effect on meetings. A shared Mission Mindset meeting framework gave each discipline the same questions to answer and a clearer way to act on decisions.
One-to-one coaching and group work identified moments when leaders unintentionally closed down communication. The focus was listening first, responding constructively and making it easier to raise a problem.
Executive-team assessment results were shared with that team separately from the wider group, so their progress could be reviewed without blending the two perspectives.
Participants clarified the current situation and project direction, what each discipline had been asked to do and why, the effect required, the direction to give others and the controls needed to manage risk.
A controlling idea, defined roles and clear outcomes helped participants turn the discussion into decisions and accountable actions. One-to-one coaching followed the meeting where individual development was needed.
Start by agreeing the behaviour you want to change, the situations in which it matters and how you will review progress. We can use examples from your current work to shape the engagement and establish a useful starting point.
Discuss a similar challenge