By Patrick Lencioni, President, The Table Group
The greatest myth that exists about meetings is that they are inherently bad.
As a business society, we've come to accept that meetings are unavoidably painful and unproductive-one of the necessary evils of organizational life. But the fact is, bad meetings are a reflection of bad leaders. Worse yet, they take a more devastating toll on a company's success than we realize.
Fortunately, for those organizations that are willing to challenge the notion that meetings are unfixable, it is possible to transform what is now tedious and debilitating into something productive, focused, even energizing. The key to improving meetings, however, has nothing to do with better preparation, agendas or minutes. To address the problem, leaders will need to take a contrarian view of meetings and apply a few basic guidelines.
The first step in transforming meetings is to understand why they are so bad. There are two basic problems. First, meetings lack drama. Which means they are boring. Second, most meetings lack context and purpose. They are a confusing mix of administrivia, tactics, strategy and review, all of which creates unfocused, meandering and seemingly endless conferences, with little resolution or clarity.
Drama
The key to making meetings more engaging - and less boring - lies in identifying and nurturing the natural level of conflict that should exist. One of the best places to learn how to do this is Hollywood.
Directors and screenwriters learned long ago that movies need conflict to hold the interests of their audiences. Viewers need to believe that there are high stakes on the line, and they need to feel the tension that the characters feel. What is more, they realized if they didn't nurture that conflict - or drama - in the first 10 minutes of a movie, audiences would lose interest and disengage.
Leaders of meetings need to do the same by putting the right issues - often the most controversial ones - on the table at the beginning of their meetings. By demanding that their people wrestle with those issues until resolution has been achieved, they can create genuine, compelling drama, and prevent their audiences from checking out.
Context and Purpose
Unfortunately, no amount of drama will matter if leaders don't create the right context for their meetings and make it clear to team members why the meeting is taking place, and what is expected of them. To create context, leaders must differentiate between different types of meetings. Too often, however, they throw every possible conversation into one long staff meeting. This creates confusion and frustration among team members who struggle to shift back and forth between tactical and strategic conversations, with little or no resolution of issues.
But be warned, by creating context, leaders might just have to have more meetings. That's right. More meetings. Not necessarily more time in meetings; but more different types of meetings for sure. In fact, teams should ideally be having four distinct meetings on a regular basis. These include the Daily Check-in, the Weekly Tactical, the Monthly Strategic and the Quarterly Off-site Review.
The Daily Check-in is a schedule-oriented, administrative meeting that should last no more than five or 10 minutes. The purpose is simply to keep team members aligned and to provide a daily forum for activity updates and scheduling.
The Weekly Tactical is what most people have come to know as staff meetings. These should be approximately an hour in length, give or take 20 minutes, and should focus on the discussion and resolution of issues which effect near term objectives. Ironically, these work best if there is no pre-set agenda. Instead, the team should quickly review one another's priorities and the team's overall scorecard, and then decide on what to discuss during the remainder of the meeting. This will help them avoid wasting time on trivial issues and focus only on those issues that are truly relevant and critical. The key to making these tactical meetings work is having the discipline to identify and postpone the discussion of more strategic topics, which brings us to the third kind of meeting.
The Monthly Strategic is the most interesting kind of meeting for leaders, and the most important indicator of a company's strategic aptitude. It is the appropriate place for big topics, those that will have a long-term impact on the business. These issues require more time and a different setting, one in which participants can brainstorm, debate, present ideas and wrestle with one another in pursuit of the optimal long-term solution. Each strategic meeting should include no more than one or two topics, and should allow roughly two hours for each topic.
The Quarterly Off-Site Review is an opportunity for team members to step away from the business, literally and figuratively, to reassess a variety of issues: the interpersonal performance of the team, the company's strategy, the performance of top-tier and bottom-tier employees, morale, competitive threats and industry trends. These can last anywhere from the better part of a day to two full days each quarter.
The Commitment
One of the keys to making this four-pronged meeting structure work is to overcome the most common objection of corporate leaders, "How am I going to get my work done if I'm spending all of my time in meetings?" There are two ways to answer this.
First, adding up all of the time that these meetings require amounts to approximately twenty percent of a leader's time. Ironically, most leaders spend even more time on meetings anyway, particularly if they factor-in "sneaker time" which accounts for the hours of sending e-mail, leaving voicemail and roaming the halls to clarify issues that should have been made clear during a meeting in the first place.
Second, leaders need to ask themselves a basic question. "What is more important than meetings?" If they say "sales" or "e-mail" or "product design," then maybe they should reconsider their roles as leaders and go back to an individual contributor position. If you think about it, a leader who hates meetings is a lot like a surgeon who hates operating on people, or a symphony conductor who hates concerts. Meetings are what leaders do, and the solution to bad meetings is not the elimination of them, but rather the transformation of them into meaningful, engaging and relevant activities.
Meetings Structure - The Four Meetings
| Meeting | Time | Purpose/Format | Keys to Success |
| Daily Check-In | 5 - 10 Minutes | Share daily schedules and activities |
|
| Weekly Tactical | 45 - 90 Minutes | Review weekly activities and metrics, and resolve tactical obstacles and issues |
|
| Monthly Strategic | 2 - 4 Hours | Discuss, analyze, brainstorm and decide upon critical issues affecting long-term success |
|
| Quarterly Off-site Review | 1 - 2 Days | Review strategy, competitive landscape, industry trends, key personnel, team development |
|
How effective are meetings in your organization?
Take the following quiz and find out.
1. Yes/No Are your meetings dull and uninspiring?
2. Yes/No Do team members question the usefulness of meetings?
3. Yes/No Are critical issues avoided or overlooked during meetings?
4. Yes/No Do you wonder if team members are holding back during meetings?
5. Yes/No Do team members complain about having to attend meetings?
6. Yes/No Do you find that meetings end without resolution of critical issues?
7. Yes/No Do you discuss administrative, tactical and strategic topics during the same meetings?
8. Yes/No Are important discussions cut short because of time constraints?
9. Yes/No Is your team reluctant to go off-site more than once a year to review the state of the organization and business?
10. Yes/No Do team members seem disengaged during meetings?
If you answered NO to all of these questions, congratulations! You have one of those rare teams that has mastered the art of meetings.
If you answered YES to 1-4 of these questions, you could probably improve your organization's decision-making and overall effectiveness by making a few adjustments to the structure and content of your meetings.
If you answered YES to 5 or more of these questions, your meetings are probably causing you to waste considerable resources, both human and financial, and creating confusion within your organization. You should consider making significant changes in the content and structure of your meetings.
Provided below are brief explanations of the questions and answers from the quiz.
Are your meetings dull and uninspiring?
Contrary to popular belief, meetings are not inherently boring. With the right topics and the right context, they can be engaging and compelling. Dull and uninspiring meetings are an indication of poor meeting management, which inevitably leads to sub-optimal decisions.
Do team members question the usefulness of meetings?
When meetings are properly organized and executed, team members don't complain about them because they understand the critical role meetings play in the organization. They see meetings as a vital and integral part of doing their jobs, not as an ancillary activity outside of real work.
Do you find that critical issues are avoided or overlooked during meetings?
In many organizations, too much time during meetings is spent discussing issues that are not critical to the short or long term success of the business. For as much time that is spent in meetings, all too often, the most important issues never get put on the table. This frustrates team members who want to focus their energy on topics that will have the greatest impact on the success of the organization.
Do you wonder if team members are holding back during meetings?
One of the keys to a great meeting is team members having confidence that all important opinions are being surfaced and considered. When team members suspect that others are holding back, whether or not it's true, it becomes next to impossible to achieve real buy-in and commitment.
Do team members complain about having to attend meetings?
Complaining about meetings seems to have become an inevitable part of organizational life, which is a shame. Meetings are the most fundamental activity in an organization. Once a team finds a way to make them work properly, they won't complain about them any more than they'd complain about sales, marketing or any other essential corporate activity. What is more, they'll actually look forward to them as tools that help save time and gain clarity.
Do you find that meetings end without resolution of critical issues?
Though a team cannot guarantee that every decision it makes is correct, it can ensure that meetings end with clarity about what has been decided. If critical issues remain unresolved when a meeting is set to end, that meeting should be continued, either immediately or some time shortly thereafter, until resolution can be achieved.
Do you discuss administrative, tactical and strategic topics during the same meetings?
Combining too many types of issues during one meeting creates confusion and frustration among team members who find it difficult to shift back and forth among administrative, tactical and strategic topics.
Are important discussions cut short because of time constraints?
Contrary to popular opinion, ending a meeting on time is not necessarily a sign of success. In fact, when time constraints prevent important discussions from running their course, there is a good chance that not enough time is being set aside for critical issues. When it comes to making key decisions, there are few activities that can justify ending a meeting prematurely.
Is your team reluctant to go off-site more than once a year to review the state of the organization and business?
Though busy schedules make it difficult for teams to leave the office for a day or two every quarter, there is no activity more important to keeping an organization on track than stepping back on a regular basis and reviewing the state of the organization, the culture and the team. Failing to do so may seem to save time in the short term, but over the long haul, it sets the team back because problems are not identified and addressed until they become costly and difficult to resolve.
Do team members seem disengaged during meetings?
Inattentive and lethargic behavior during meetings is a sure sign that meetings are not being properly organized and managed, In addition, there may not be enough healthy conflict taking place. Organizations that master the art and science of good meetings find team members are generally more engaged, passionate and focused.
Patrick Lencioni is the author of the new release Death By Meeting (March 2004 Jossey-Bass) and the longstanding BusinessWeek Best-Seller, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. He is president of The Table Group, a management consulting firm specializing in practical solutions for teams. For article feedback, Pat can be reached at patricklencioni@tablegroup.com.
