There are conversations that last a long time but move nothing forward.
At first glance, they look like work.
Someone is talking to a colleague.
They are discussing business matters.
They are thinking aloud, comparing options, and asking for reactions.
But one simple question exposes the problem.
So, what was decided?
Who owns the next step?
What is the deadline?
What is the decision criterion?
What should happen next?
Who is responsible?
If none of these remain after the conversation, it was not a productive consultation.
It was just labor-costly wall-talking.
Time spent talking is not an output
The dangerous thing about conversations is that they create the feeling of progress.
You talked for an hour.
The other person nodded.
The topic was work-related.
So it feels like work happened.
But conversation output should not be measured by time.
It should be measured by whether at least one of the following became clear:
- a decision
- a decision criterion
- an owner
- a deadline
- a next action
- an unresolved question
- a point that needs additional confirmation
If none of these exist, the conversation was closer to a stream of unresolved thought than actual work.
And when another person is involved, the cost is not yours alone.
If one person talks for 1.5 hours and another listens for 1.5 hours, that is already three person-hours consumed.
If people nearby also lose focus, the real cost is even higher.
Unproductive consultations are usually caused by mixed issues
In conversations that do not move work forward, several different issues are usually mixed together.
For example, these should be separated:
Job requirements
What does the work actually require?The person’s fit, experience, and preferences
How well does the person match those requirements?The organization’s support system
Can the company provide the training, protection, and environment needed?Risk management
If something goes wrong, who will support and how?
These are separate questions.
But bad conversations mix them together.
A discussion about work requirements turns into a discussion about someone’s personality.
A weak support system becomes “that person is not suitable.”
A lack of clear criteria becomes “they probably won’t last.”
Once that happens, no conclusion appears.
Because the conversation is no longer solving the real problem.
The dark spell: turning structural problems into personality problems
There is a common dark spell in workplaces.
Turning structural problems into personality problems.
The real issue may be that the organization lacks structure.
There is no training system.
No clear standard.
No support process.
No rule to protect people.
No clear responsibility boundary.
The operating system of the workplace is outdated.
But instead of treating it as an organizational issue, people say:
“They are not suited for this.”
“They do not fit.”
“They probably won’t continue.”
“They don’t understand.”
“They are too soft.”
“They don’t understand the field.”
This lets the organization avoid looking at its own weakness.
It lets the decision-maker avoid admitting that the system is underdeveloped.
But the work does not move forward.
Because the cause has been mislabeled.
“Do you understand?” is not always a check
Another feature of unproductive conversations is the repeated use of phrases like:
Do you understand?
Of course, checking understanding is sometimes necessary.
For safety, quality, and procedures, confirmation matters.
But when the whole conversation is negative, no conclusion has been made, and “Do you understand?” is repeated, it may not be confirmation.
It may be a demand for emotional validation.
The speaker may be asking the listener to:
- absorb their anxiety
- approve their thinking
- listen without disagreeing
- stay with their confusion
- confirm that they are right
That is not business consultation.
That is outsourcing emotional processing.
The listener becomes not a colleague, but a caretaker, validator, and emotional buffer.
Work cannot move forward that way.
Sometimes AI is a better wall than a human
Talking to people is not bad.
Human judgment matters.
Context, responsibility, empathy, and operational reality often require real human discussion.
But before the issues are even organized, capturing someone for over an hour is risky.
At that stage, using AI as a thinking wall may be more efficient.
AI can help turn confusion into:
- separated issues
- contradictions
- decision criteria
- multiple conclusion options
- pros and cons
- next actions
- a pre-meeting memo
Then humans can review it.
The point is not to replace human judgment.
The point is to stop using people as raw thinking walls before the discussion is organized.
Defense spell: issue separation
When you get pulled into this kind of conversation, direct opposition often drains you.
If the other person is mainly talking through anxiety, hitting them with logic may only prolong the discussion.
A better move is issue separation.
For example:
It may help to separate the work requirements from the support system.
The person-side issue and the company-side support issue should probably be organized separately.
Are we deciding today, or are we just listing the issues?
I just want to confirm the owner and deadline.
What is the next action?
The point is not to attack the speaker.
Do not say:
“Your story is too long.”
“Nothing has been decided.”
“That is just personality judgment.”
That will make the other person defensive.
Instead, bring the conversation back to paper:
- issue
- criterion
- conclusion
- owner
- deadline
- next action
That is the defense spell against this dark magic.
Good consultations make the work lighter
A good consultation makes things lighter at the end.
“Let’s proceed with this.”
“Let’s confirm only this point.”
“This condition is acceptable.”
“Let’s watch this risk.”
“This person will handle this part by this date.”
A bad consultation makes things heavier.
You do not know what will happen.
You do not know who owns the next step.
You do not know what the actual problem was.
But somehow, someone’s personality has been blamed.
That is not work.
A productive conversation does not judge people.
It separates structure, defines conditions, and turns them into the next action.
Summary
When long conversations do not move work forward, the problem is not a lack of conversation.
It is often the opposite.
There is too much talking.
But not enough separation.
Not enough decisions.
Not enough writing.
No ownership.
And structural problems are being converted into personality problems.
A consultation does not become valuable just because it is long.
Catching someone for 1.5 hours does not automatically make it work.
What is needed is not more wall-talking.
It is one clear memo.
What is the conclusion?
Who owns it?
By when?
What are the issues?
What is the company-side problem?
What is the person-side problem?
Only when these are separated does conversation become work.
References / 執筆時の参考
Microsoft Work Trend Index, “Will AI Fix Work?”
Notes: inefficient meetings are described as a major productivity disruptor; unclear next steps and meeting overload are highlighted.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/will-ai-fix-workMcKinsey, “What is an effective meeting?”
Notes: ineffective meetings waste time, create distraction and confusion, and should be questioned by asking whether the meeting is needed and what it is for.
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-an-effective-meetingMcKinsey, “Want a better decision? Plan a better meeting”
Notes: decision meetings should be prepared so that they lead to better and faster decisions.
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/want-a-better-decision-plan-a-better-meeting
