Effective Meetings
Meetings are the bane of the existence of many (even most) employees. Meetings that could have been emails, meetings with too much talking and too little action, meetings about meetings: meetings are often a thing of dread, with good reason. They seem inevitable, yet are often the least productive or enjoyable part of a person’s day. Is there any hope for meetings? Can anything be done to make them even slightly less excruciating?
Patrick Lencioni says yes. In fact, in his book, The Advantage, he insists that rehabbing meetings is essential to organizational health. “Bad meetings are the birthplace of unhealthy organizations, and good meetings are the origin of cohesion, clarity, and communication” (Kindle Location 3028). But… is there such a thing as a good meeting? Has anyone actually laid eyes on such a mythical beast? Lencioni insists that there is! The key is having the right kinds of meetings at the right times, and those meetings must actually achieve their stated objective.
The first kind of meeting is the daily checkin. This is a stand-up, ten-minute, connect-the-dots meeting. Everyone comes with practical, technical issues and sorts them out with the whole team present. This is a great way to streamline communication on a team, establish trust, and create a strong sense of unity. Not to mention all but eliminating countless emails, voicemails, and cubicle drive-bys that typical communication gaps create. When all those are solved in a few minutes each morning, the team can say, “ready, break!” and hit the ground running with far greater clarity.
The second is the tactical staff meeting. This is the typical dreaded weekly time-suck that everyone comes to dread. However, Lencioni works hard to give it a facelift. The first refresh is creating a real-time agenda of urgent tactical items formed in the first few minutes of the meeting itself. This allows the team to tackle the most urgent, most practical needs. These are held up in the context of the team’s scorecard and sorted in order of priority based on this big picture. Everything is color-coded green (good) yellow (okay) and red (yikes, we’re way behind!). This freshly-formed agenda then begins with tackling the most urgent red and yellow areas and maybe one to two other critical, quick items. The genius of the tactical meeting is this: it must stay tactical. Anything brought up that is important and relevant but requires a more lengthy discussion or more research must be moved to another kind of meeting altogether.
The third kind of meeting is a strategic topical meeting. These happen monthly, or as the need arises. This is where things get interesting, robust dialogue is encouraged, research is presented, and ideas get wrestled to the ground. These meetings are longer, but this is where leaders get to roll up their sleeves and really work on mission-critical issues, trends that have long-term impact, and situations that may take significant time and energy to resolve. Mixing this kind of deeper discussion into the weekly tactical meeting is where many organizations end up serving a confusing pot of “meeting stew” and ineffective meetings are the result. Frustration reigns when a critical issue is given fifteen minutes to be solved in the middle of a rushed tactical meeting. By giving key ideas and situations their own meeting, they get the time and attention they deserve. Leaders actually get to bring the best of who they are to work through these issues and solve them to the best of their ability, not just the best of what they could come up with in a few minutes. Employees find themselves utilizing their creativity and, dare it be said, having fun. In a meeting! Looking forward to longer meetings! Getting excited about picking the brains of their colleagues and coming up with solutions that will actually have a big impact! Imagine!
The fourth kind of meeting is the quarterly “off-site” review. Here the team is reviewing goals and strategic plans, assessing employee performance, reviewing the SWOT analysis, and evaluating themselves and their team cohesiveness. This is a longer look at the big picture, making sure the team is on track, forecasting what is coming up ahead, and evaluating the “hands on deck” they have available, both themselves as leaders and the people on their team. These meetings should set the direction for the scorecard used in the tactical meetings, as well as generate topics for the longer strategic meetings.
By ruthlessly separating all four of these types of meetings and staying true to their purposes, organizations can see an immediate boost in communication, clarity, and effectiveness. “A great deal of the time that leaders spend every day is a result of having to address issues that come about because they aren’t being resolved during meetings in the first place.” By making your meetings work for you and not against you, the rest of the work day should be visibly more productive.
By now the vision for why an organization might benefit from this system of meetings is clear, but there are two challenges in implementing this system in an already-existing organization. First, ruthlessly drawing the line in the tactical meeting to only address tactical issues, and tabling topics that need a longer discussion, research, and conversation to the strategic meeting. It is tough once a topic has been introduced that is relevant, even critical, to not allow the team to discuss it in the moment. Yet, they will learn that moving it to the other meeting is for the best in the long run. Second, carving out time for the strategic meetings is a challenge, especially at first, when the list of topics is long. Ultimately, giving important topics the time and attention they deserve will pay evident dividends and these meetings will be the highlight of everyone’s month.
What inspires you in this meeting model? What intrigues you? Where are you skeptical? Let me know in the comments!
