More Productive Meetings

The biweekly fire department staff meeting gathers the usual cast of characters: the shift chief officers, a training chief, the fire marshal, the support services director, the deputy chief and the fire chief. Although it’s scheduled for 2 hours, the meeting extends longer amid fidgeting, clock-watching and mumbled frustrations. But the agenda prevails and the meeting runs to the bitter end.

A post-mortem of the meeting reveals that the group spent 45 minutes on the first item and 20 minutes and 30 minutes, respectively, on the next two items. The final four items were compressed into the remaining 25 minutes plus some “overtime.” No one seems particularly pleased with the outcome, merely that the meeting is over for another 2 weeks. This meeting is more habit than healthy.

Death by Meeting?
Drudgery such as this occurs all the time. Experts estimate middle managers spend 30—35 percent of their work time in meetings; among senior managers, the estimate climbs past 50 percent.

Meetings are essential, even critical, business elements. They help us make decisions and set plans in motion. Yet frustration and boredom cloud the picture and sometimes cause high-quality employees to avoid promotions or leadership opportunities for fear of having to sit through additional unproductive meetings. What a paradox!

The good news: We don’t have to settle for bad meetings. Meetings are not inherently bad or boring; they turn out that way because leaders fail and team members allow that failure to continue unchallenged. We fail to pursue the dynamics of successful meetings, we forego proper planning and we neglect to exercise critical skills necessary for good meeting outcomes.

You can hire a consultant to lead you through a “meeting makeover,” or you can attend a seminar to jumpstart your thinking about how to conduct meetings. But those fixes can be expensive and time-consuming. Online, you can find an assortment of resources on the subject. But then, how do you select from among the multiple offerings?

The best book about meetings  I’ve come across is “Death by Meeting,” a national bestseller, the title of which captures the way many of us feel about meetings.  

In this column, I’ll review some key elements of the book, but I encourage you to secure a copy. You’ll find it engaging and valuable, as well as a quick read.

Drama & Context
The author’s self-described “leadership fable,” Patrick Lencioni’s “Death by Meeting” skillfully weaves a story that offers first-hand insight into the characteristics and behaviors associated with this painful business problem. Then, through interventions by his protagonist Will Peterson, he introduces the framework and rationale for his blueprint to change people’s thinking and approach to meetings.

Lencioni draws upon the elements of movies and television to re-examine meeting structure and content. He zeroes in on two key complaints about meetings: 1) They’re boring because they lack drama; and 2) they’re ineffective because they lack contextual structure.

Lencioni notes that drama keeps us engaged, and conflict is the key to drama. But when conflict surfaces, leaders tend to become uncomfortable, so they try to avoid, dismiss or defuse it. Rather, Lencioni advises leaders to “mine” for and encourage healthy conflict as a means both to uncover risks and keep people engaged in the process and interested in the outcome.

“To make meetings less boring, leaders must … provoke and uncover relevant, constructive ideological conflict,” Lencioni says. The result: greater energy and fervor in discussions, which truly leads to better decisions.

As for contextual structure, Lencioni points out that most of us have experienced only one type of regular meeting, generally termed a “staff meeting.” This meeting may occur weekly or twice per month and is a “randomly focused discussion about strategy to tactics, from administrative to culture.” He calls this dysfunctional “meeting stew”–too many random ingredients resulting in a bad taste.

Without a clear context for the discussion, people lack focus; they become uncertain about the meeting’s purpose and the leader’s expectations. They ask themselves, “Is it time for brainstorming, or are we debating? Are we going to vote, or are we just being informed?”

Meeting Types
As this leadership fable unfolds, Will Peterson introduces four meeting types that can serve as footings to restructure and invigorate any group or team’s meetings.
1. Daily Check-In: Although not practical for all organizations, this 5-minute, stand-up daily meeting serves to align activities for the day. Proponents testify that this meeting provides an exchange for critical information that previously was obtained through redundant individual e-mails, phone calls and personal conversations.
2. Weekly Tactical: These meetings occur regularly (not necessarily weekly) to focus on short-range issues of immediate interest or apprehension. The meeting duration expands as needed–45 minutes or longer–and may accommodate the following: a “lightning round” allowing all attendees 1 minute or less to describe top priorities; a “progress review” including key measures of performance but limited to 4—5 minutes per topic; and/or a “real-time agenda” for the balance of the meeting that’s not preplanned. The goals: clarity of direction and clearing impediments to progress.
3. Monthly Strategic: Here you take time to debate, weigh options and make decisions on one or two critical topics from a published, planned agenda. These topics usually emerge from the tactical meetings when the team recognizes the issue(s) as strategic in nature.
4. Quarterly Off-Site Review: This 1—2-day meeting allows team members to step back and consider the organization’s comprehensive strategy, the team’s performance and group behavior, the personnel-to-task fit, and/or an industry sector review.

With a functional menu of meeting structures, leaders can provide the missing “context” for team members and thereby focus energy, manage the investment in meeting time and greatly increase the likelihood of successful outcomes.

Conclusion
Organizational meetings are critical to our success; they’re at the core of good decision-making. At the same time, we have all suffered the pain of senseless and intolerably long meetings. In the words of Patrick Lencioni, “Meetings are a puzzling paradox.”

But leaders don’t have to accept this paradox as inevitable. By appreciating the value of healthy conflict (drama)–and actually digging for it–boring meetings can be transformed into interesting and challenging experiences for all participants. By ensuring clear context–illuminating the meaning and purpose–for each meeting, people can contribute their ideas with confidence and intelligence.

By combining drama and context, leaders can engage key staff and team members in meetings that invigorate individuals and build success for the organization.