Introduction
This article discusses the outcomes of cancelling meetings in terms of eroding trust, disrespecting people’s time, and burdening those with care or access needs. It makes the case that rather than being a minor matter, sticking to regular, reliable meetings builds confidence, sustains participation, and honours everyone’s commitment.
Article
A little community organiser principle of mine has been “never cancel a meeting”.
I don’t know if it came from Saul Alinsky* or whether I picked it up somewhere amorphously, but I recall this principle every single time someone cancels or moves a meeting.
Cancelling a meeting might seem trivial or sometimes necessary, but for every meeting canceled, postponed or moved, every one of the people who were coming to that meeting had already spent time setting aside things and marking the time in their calendars, diaries and lives. Now they have to make more small changes in their busy lives, to figure out when the next meeting is, if there is one, wait for updates, re-schedule.
For most of the time it’s no big deal. For some it might be cancelling a baby-sitter or regretting saying no to something else important or putting someone else out. For those managing their health, having to think through and plan their transport and access, and to those that have dependent family or young ones, it’s an accessibility issue. For every single person it’s some sort of impost.
A single meeting cancelled or postponed is no big thing. Swapping, changing, delaying, postponing can happen once. Maybe it’s unavoidable – but the next time affects the relationship. The third – well would you trust the person or group organising it? Trust is eroded over time, and the trust between people in a group – particularly in activist, grassroots, volunteer ones is absolutely precious. It’s sometimes the key thread in people showing up.
This is the political cost of cancelled meetings.
Showing up time and again is hard enough, but if there is any doubt, even the slightest inkling that a meeting *might* not happen, might just get postponed again, then setting aside our precious time becomes even harder, and over time, less people make the effort to show up to the next meeting. For people new to the group or trepidatious about staying, a last minute meeting change might be just the excuse to bow out.
Is undermining even a little bit of trust with others who are giving their time up actually worth it? As organisers our relationships and the amount of trust others have in us is critical. Every cancelled or postponed meeting chips away at that.
I have found time and again it is far, far better to stick to a small, or poorly attended meeting on principle – than changing it in the hope that people can make some other time. If some people, even ‘important’ people, can’t or don’t show up, at least those people know that the meeting went ahead. If those people are frustrated that they ‘missed’ the meeting then they are more likely to turn up next time. At least the work continued, and at least everyone is that much more likely to stay involved and trust that the group will move forward, whether or not they attend. That builds confidence.
I used to think every community organiser knew this. All of the most effective and sustainable groups I’ve ever been a part of set regular weekly or monthly meetings that were sacrosanct. We built our lives around those meeting times, and they were reliable and solid and safe. If you couldn’t make a meeting, you knew that others would be there keeping things rolling. If you went away or paused involvement in a group, you knew exactly when the meetings were to get back involved when you came back. If your team is holding regular meetings on the first Tuesday of every month it becomes reliable and sustainable. Worthy of the trust given by everyone you hope is going to show up time and again. Regular and reliable meetings are a simple way to ensure that the ‘pathway to participation’ in a group is as clear as possible.
It seemed to be the core operating model for so many campaigns and groups that lasted.
It seems this principle is no longer widely shared. These days meetings swap, change and get postponed so commonly it’s mundane. Online meetings get cancelled, added or swapped at a moment’s notice.
People try ridiculous online meeting schedulers that mean you have to do even more work to set aside multiple ‘possible’ meeting times and by the time you have a time that suits most people there is no time left to actually call the meeting with enough notice. (They were always horrible for single parents who had to arrange baby-sitters ’cause you never knew when the meeting would be until the last minute). Instead of trying to please everyone – set a meeting time with ample notice for everyone to arrange things and then stick to it.
For one on one, or ad-hoc meetings, even urgent meetings, the principle is the same. You agree to the meeting time with as much notice as possible and you stick to it, respecting each other’s personal and political time. Trust, reliability and respect are part of that basic agreement.
If meetings are getting cancelled or postponed because the organisers themselves are exhausted or struggling with burnout this reflects a deeper issue. Like all community organising principles and practices – ‘never cancel a meeting’ needs to be a shared, collectively owned principle.
Online meetings lower the personal cost of attending and appear to be easier to cancel nonchalantly, but the impacts are similar and the principle is the same. Never cancel a meeting. Set a meeting with enough notice and stick to it.
Community, campaigning and movement groups are held together by meetings and by trust. It’s hard work. (Some meetings suck but that’s another matter entirely.) Holding meetings, sticking to them and using them to build and maintain trust is organiser 101.
For your comrades, for your community, for parents and those with access needs, and for the long term sustainability of the group – think twice before you decide to cancel that meeting.
* Saul Alinsky (1909 –1972) was a Chicago-based community organiser and political theorist. He worked as part of the Industrial Areas Foundation organising with poor communities against landlords, politicians, bankers and big business. In his Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer (1971) Alinsky said that community organising “starts where people are at”, and defended both confrontational tactics and tactical compromise as keys to the struggle for social justice.
About the Author
Anthony Kelly is a Naarm-based activist trainer, organiser and filmmaker. He helped found Melbourne Activist Legal Support (MALS), and has been involved with many other movement infrastructure projects and networks.
No AI or LLM was used in any way in the writing of this article.
Explore Further
- Facilitating Meetings: A Guide to Making your Meetings Effective, Inclusive and Enjoyable
- Starhawk’s ‘Five-Fold Path of Productive Meetings‘
- Berit Lakey’s classic ‘Meeting Facilitation: The No Magic Method’
- Leaderful Organizing Tool: Good Meetings
- Facilitation Tools and Techniques
- Action group meetings
- Working in Groups: Start Here