Do You Have Time Limits on Meeting Agendas? Here Is Why You Should Not

We are often asked about putting time limits on items when constructing agendas. Many committees depend on these limits to keep the agenda moving.

When we do agendas, we rarely use time limits. We have had very few committees that need them in their meetings. They also can prevent committees from adequately discussing issues.

Time limits are completely artificial. At best, they are guesses about how much time someone thought an item would take (or how long they thought they could stand an item). The problem arises when the time limit is reached without a resolution to the item.

When time has expired, the committee has to determine its options. Should they stop discussing the item and move it forward to the next agenda without resolution or try to make a decision without all information and without reaching consensus? Often, they decide to add more time to the item. This causes problems in deciding what arbitrary amount of time should be added to the now exceeded arbitrary time limit. They also need to decide which later items should be shorted to provide the extra time, setting up further problems when that item is considered.

We have seen teams get into heated, prolonged discussions about whether to add time and how much to add, further contributing to time problems and adding to conflict. This all can be avoided with better meeting planning and facilitation.

Three major reasons for time limits are discussions that bog down or get off track, too many items on the agenda, and inability of the team to make decisions. Each of these can be resolved without the use of time limits.

Discussions on items bog down – The job of a facilitator is to keep meetings moving effectively and efficiently. They monitor the discussion to provide everyone the opportunity to offer their viewpoints without rehashing what has already been said. A facilitator makes sure the discussion stays on the topic. They may use a parking lot to keep record of other items that come up during the discussion.

If the facilitator realizes the committee is not likely to resolve the item at that meeting, they can determine why and help develop a plan to move the item forward. It may be necessary to gather more data, bring in others to offer their expertise, or allow members time to develop other options for the next meeting. The facilitator will not allow the item to be dropped. Instead, they will help the team develop an action plan for their resolution.

This is part of the reason we encourage all teams to have a facilitator. When difficult issues arise, even the best teams may need help.

In a future blog, we will look at other time problems and alternatives to time limits on agendas.

About CALMC Blog

Columbus Area Labor-Management Committee is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to involving employers and employees to preserve jobs, resolve workplace issues, and promote labor-management cooperation. Visit our website at
This entry was posted in Effective Meetings, Facilitation, Labor-Management Committees and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Do You Have Time Limits on Meeting Agendas? Here Is Why You Should Not

  1. Tim Rueb says:

    This advice is completely misguided. The facilitators role does not change if the agenda time line is posted, it is enhanced. The room understands the facilitator is taking action because expectations are laid out in advance. What is changed is the expectation of the presenter.

    As for ‘arbitrary’ times being set, I will grant you that this can happen, but again, the goal of a facilitator is not to just pick a number out of their hat, but rather use their experience to determine how much has been used in the past, and then adjust accordingly based on any other data that is available.

    When I train facilitators and departments, I show them how to build consensus outside the meeting, and if that can’t be accomplished then pre-send materials with the explicit expectation stated that a specific answer (solution) will be addressed (voted on) in the time allotted. If this is an important matter, why wouldn’t I be meeting with the stakeholders before the meeting anyways, to improve and refine my presentation and material, and yes gain support, before I present my material?

    • CALMC Blog says:


      We don’t disagree about the role or responsibilities of the facilitator. My comments were not about setting time limits for a person making a presentation to a committee, but were about the discussion and actions of the committee itself.

      i think we agree about the importance of facilitation in helping a team reach resolution to issues. I would not agree on telling a team that only one specific answer can be considered or voted upon. Some of your comments relate to what I an going to discuss the next time on this topic.

      Thanks for reading the blog and taking the time to comment.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.