Today, as with many days, I was piled in meetings, end to end. Conference calls, to be specific, but much the same thing. And while we often lament the productivity-killing meeting, there are such things as meetings with merit. But whether you’re the one on the organizing end or just attending, it’s important to be able to tell the difference.
Good Meetings….
Sometimes, your role in a meeting isn’t to do, but to guide. It can feel frustrating to just be talking or listening, but those more passive activities can actually be purposeful AND move things forward, IF:
- The meeting has a desired outcome or focus
- Your discussion clarifies direction, intent, or goals
- You can direct or deploy necessary resources to make progress
- Approvals or blessings are given to move to a next step
- Necessary information is shared and captured in order to move forward
Being a good meeting planner means that you understand the agenda and desired outcome, keep the conversation on track, solicit the information and feedback you need, and wrap up the meeting when the discussion is done. An awful lot of meetings get slated for an hour when 30 or even 15 minutes would do, and you find yourself blabbering on to fill the time. Stop it. End early.
Bad Meetings…
I probably don’t need to spell this out, really, because it’s the opposite of everything above. Bad meetings lack focus, direction, clarity or brevity, and most often they lack a leader, someone to relentlessly keep everyone on task. If everyone doesn’t walk away from a meeting with a clear next step in mind for their particular role in the project, you’ve probably missed the mark.
So, how about some strategies for making meetings more effective?
Building a Valuable Meeting
- If you’re the meeting leader or organizer, have an agenda, even if it’s two bullet points. Spell out exactly what you want to cover, and what you want to walk away from the meeting with. Don’t have a leader? Appoint one or volunteer. You need one.
- Don’t have “update only” meetings, where folks just share what they’re working on and report in. Share that information in a collaborative document somewhere, and use that precious synchronous meeting time to have each person tap the group for information or approvals they need to move their status updates to the next stage, or to completion.
- Allot only the time you need. If you need 15 minutes to just get agreement on one key question, ask for 15 minutes, and no more.
- Use tools instead of meetings where you can. If it’s just arriving at consensus you need and it doesn’t have to be simultaneous, try something like Google Wave or email. As with in person meetings, though, be very explicit about what you need done in that communication thread so you can recognize when it’s done.
- Summarize. Don’t leave the meeting until you’re sure each person has a handle on what they’ll do next, and when and how you’ll need to reconvene to move forward again as a group.
- Specify between task-driven meetings and brainstorm sessions. Don’t let the two bleed into each other. If you need a different time to flesh out ideas related to a project, set a separate time or set up a collaborative tool with just the people that need to be involved on that item.
- Don’t use meetings as your personal organization tool. Just because you’re not organized doesn’t mean you should drag everyone in a room to help you get that way. Be prepared. Get your own stuff together so that meetings are reserved for action and productive discussion, not clarifying information you should have been able to gather yourself.
- Excuse people. If you have someone in a meeting and their portion is done, let them leave and go do other things. Not everyone needs to be wholly present for all parts of every meeting.
I’m tossing this all off the top of my head, but I’m going to stop here. I know you have ideas, and I’m hoping you’ll share them.
In this busy business environment, dedicated time and presence with others is the most valuable time you can spend. There’s nothing more frustrating than feeling like you’ve wasted hours you’ll never get back.
Meetings are a necessity, and they can often be incredibly productive. What would you share about making meetings less like torture, and more about progress? I’m eager to hear your take.
image by ell brown
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=65c7c605-001c-4dd4-b507-b6c217623c5f)
Meeting productivity is a growing issue, isn’t it? They used to be valuable face time check-ins for organizations where data was largely contained in silos and brought together at the meeting. But, now that much data is self-discoverable; meetings often feel like a waste of time. It’s a really big question: when is a meeting necessary?
I like the points you shared, Amber. I find they are best for accountability. The best meeting I have every week is our communications planning meeting. The comms team knows the drill: fill out the calendar with stories before the meeting, discuss conflicting resources, and see if anything should be coordinated differently.
Knowing that we have to have our updates in before that meeting, makes the meeting valuable.
.-= Justin Kistner´s last blog ..In need of better data integration, AdBrite switches to Webtrends =-.
It sure is a growing issue. And I think meetings are still necessary, we just need better filters and more efficiency. And I agree with you re: the accountability bit. That’s a big bugaboo with me: making sure that meetings wrap with people knowing what they’re responsible for, if anything.
Meeting productivity is a growing issue, isn’t it? They used to be valuable face time check-ins for organizations where data was largely contained in silos and brought together at the meeting. But, now that much data is self-discoverable; meetings often feel like a waste of time. It’s a really big question: when is a meeting necessary?
I like the points you shared, Amber. I find they are best for accountability. The best meeting I have every week is our communications planning meeting. The comms team knows the drill: fill out the calendar with stories before the meeting, discuss conflicting resources, and see if anything should be coordinated differently.
Knowing that we have to have our updates in before that meeting, makes the meeting valuable.
.-= Justin Kistner´s last blog ..In need of better data integration, AdBrite switches to Webtrends =-.
It sure is a growing issue. And I think meetings are still necessary, we just need better filters and more efficiency. And I agree with you re: the accountability bit. That’s a big bugaboo with me: making sure that meetings wrap with people knowing what they’re responsible for, if anything.
Great post, Amber! I’d add that not only should there be an agenda, it should be shared ahead of time, along with the attendee list. Knowing the agenda helps me be a better-prepared attendee. Knowing the other attendees lets me know if anyone is missing from my perspective – particularly when meetings are called by higher-ups who aren’t as close to a project, they might not realize who else has critical information or perspective and needs to be in the room.
In thinking about Justin’s comment, I’d say that while information is more self-discoverable, context is not (or at least not to the same degree).
Great additions, Tara. Knowing the attendees also helps frame the meeting agenda to be sure it makes the most of everyone’s time and presence. And context is indeed key. That’s a critical purpose for meetings, in my view. Giving context and forward motion to all of that information.
Great post, Amber! I’d add that not only should there be an agenda, it should be shared ahead of time, along with the attendee list. Knowing the agenda helps me be a better-prepared attendee. Knowing the other attendees lets me know if anyone is missing from my perspective – particularly when meetings are called by higher-ups who aren’t as close to a project, they might not realize who else has critical information or perspective and needs to be in the room.
In thinking about Justin’s comment, I’d say that while information is more self-discoverable, context is not (or at least not to the same degree).
Great additions, Tara. Knowing the attendees also helps frame the meeting agenda to be sure it makes the most of everyone’s time and presence. And context is indeed key. That’s a critical purpose for meetings, in my view. Giving context and forward motion to all of that information.
just two words: Amber Awesome
.-= erik´s last blog ..5 ways to cripple your productivity =-.
Thanks, Erik. 🙂
just two words: Amber Awesome
.-= erik´s last blog ..5 ways to cripple your productivity =-.
Thanks, Erik. 🙂
I would add two things I use with success.
One: This is of great use where the participants are in the same building, particularly when the meeting is a daily status event, as in a manufacturing environment. A standing meeting. Yes, everyone stands. Updates can be quickly done, no lingering, no slouching, update on what is happening for the day, connections that need to be made, interdependencies amongst the departments reviewed, priorities highlighted – all while standing, then break it up and get about the day.
Two: don’t schedule your meeting for an hour. Schedule it to start five minutes past the hour and end at least ten minutes to the hour. This allows for some break between “back-to-back” meetings (bio break at a minimum). Allows for transit and transition time between meetings. As a meeting organizer running a lot of meetings virtually these days, it allows me to finish up the notes for the meeting and publish them before the next meeting starts. Now the folks walking away from my meeting have the action items in their inbox. They don’t need to wait until later to remember what action they took from the meeting. This works well for weekly project review meetings.
.-= Steve Sherlock´s last blog ..FiberCamp Boston – slideshow =-.
Steve, I like the idea of a standing meeting. That’s creative. Does it keep people on task?
I’ve also heard of some of these alternative scheduling approaches, but I’ve found limited success with them, because people are habituated to on the hour and half hour times. Like the premise, have found it much harder to execute and apply practically, especially for people like me who are often in a string of meetings and one oddly scheduled one can throw the whole thing.
I would add two things I use with success.
One: This is of great use where the participants are in the same building, particularly when the meeting is a daily status event, as in a manufacturing environment. A standing meeting. Yes, everyone stands. Updates can be quickly done, no lingering, no slouching, update on what is happening for the day, connections that need to be made, interdependencies amongst the departments reviewed, priorities highlighted – all while standing, then break it up and get about the day.
Two: don’t schedule your meeting for an hour. Schedule it to start five minutes past the hour and end at least ten minutes to the hour. This allows for some break between “back-to-back” meetings (bio break at a minimum). Allows for transit and transition time between meetings. As a meeting organizer running a lot of meetings virtually these days, it allows me to finish up the notes for the meeting and publish them before the next meeting starts. Now the folks walking away from my meeting have the action items in their inbox. They don’t need to wait until later to remember what action they took from the meeting. This works well for weekly project review meetings.
.-= Steve Sherlock´s last blog ..FiberCamp Boston – slideshow =-.
Steve, I like the idea of a standing meeting. That’s creative. Does it keep people on task?
I’ve also heard of some of these alternative scheduling approaches, but I’ve found limited success with them, because people are habituated to on the hour and half hour times. Like the premise, have found it much harder to execute and apply practically, especially for people like me who are often in a string of meetings and one oddly scheduled one can throw the whole thing.
I agree with 90 percent of what you’re saying above, meetings must have an agenda and objectives to serve any purpose. That said, there is a softer side to meetings that provide, especially for young and new talent, an opportunity to learn personalities, to see how business is transacted and information shared within an organization. Emoticons don’t replace real-life smiles, smirks, jokes, winks or frowns.
Yep, you can waste some serious time if you’re not careful (agenda + time allotments!!), but it’s an opportunity for teams to be human with each other. I HATE wasting time, but I do appreciate a few minutes to chat with a group before we get rolling into serious business. Often this is where you discover a unique skill or attribute that ultimately can be leverage for the success of the team.
Beth, those are good points about the intrinsic value of getting to know the people you work with. It’s especially hard for people like me who work remotely, and whose teams are also virtual and scattered across geographies. We have to work extra hard to make the “people” connections with those we work with.
Thankfully with tools like video, Skype, and the like, some of that can still be preserved over a distance.
I agree with 90 percent of what you’re saying above, meetings must have an agenda and objectives to serve any purpose. That said, there is a softer side to meetings that provide, especially for young and new talent, an opportunity to learn personalities, to see how business is transacted and information shared within an organization. Emoticons don’t replace real-life smiles, smirks, jokes, winks or frowns.
Yep, you can waste some serious time if you’re not careful (agenda + time allotments!!), but it’s an opportunity for teams to be human with each other. I HATE wasting time, but I do appreciate a few minutes to chat with a group before we get rolling into serious business. Often this is where you discover a unique skill or attribute that ultimately can be leverage for the success of the team.
Beth, those are good points about the intrinsic value of getting to know the people you work with. It’s especially hard for people like me who work remotely, and whose teams are also virtual and scattered across geographies. We have to work extra hard to make the “people” connections with those we work with.
Thankfully with tools like video, Skype, and the like, some of that can still be preserved over a distance.
This is a great post, and I generally agree with you that most meetings are a waste of everyone’s time.
But it occurs to me that different people communicate in different ways. There must be a way to find a balance between different communication styles. Some people just communicate more clearly face-to-face.
Also, what would you say about “update only” meetings for the sake of team unity? Or maybe they shouldn’t be “update” meetings, but make the team unity aspect of it explicit.
.-= Caleb Gardner´s last blog ..How to Take Advantage of the Local Wide Web =-.
Of course they communicate differently, absolutely. And yes, for some people, set, dedicated meetings are necessary for them to feel in touch. For example, I manage a team from a distance, so I have regular meetings with my team members individually each week. Helps us discuss project issues and stay in touch among the chaos of the regular work week.
As for the team unity thing, sure I can roll with that, if the purpose is explicit. And even a “unity” meeting should have some idea of what you want out of it. Is it an open forum to discuss things? Is it social? If people know what’s expected, they can participate in a valuable way.
I’d also argue that you can’t force unity or culture. Having a meeting will not make it so if you don’t have it, though making sure you all have time to interact with each other can help build a sense of team. I find that folks tend to resist and even resent the idea of “we’re all going to get together for team building now”, because it feels forced and not like a natural part of building work relationships. Thoughts on that?
I guess it’s a balancing act, because having regular meetings to “feel in touch” can quickly become regular meetings just for the sake of having meetings.
I think what I’d like to see out of any team I work with is using more collaboration tools (as you said) in order to respect people’s time, and use any face-to-face time as a time to reconnect on a human level with the people you work with.
So team-building, but not with traditional exercises (as you said, people resent it), but with the genuine goal of getting to know each other – whether that’s with stated social interaction time or shared experiences (preferably outside the office environment).
Sound good to you?
This is a great post, and I generally agree with you that most meetings are a waste of everyone’s time.
But it occurs to me that different people communicate in different ways. There must be a way to find a balance between different communication styles. Some people just communicate more clearly face-to-face.
Also, what would you say about “update only” meetings for the sake of team unity? Or maybe they shouldn’t be “update” meetings, but make the team unity aspect of it explicit.
.-= Caleb Gardner´s last blog ..How to Take Advantage of the Local Wide Web =-.
Of course they communicate differently, absolutely. And yes, for some people, set, dedicated meetings are necessary for them to feel in touch. For example, I manage a team from a distance, so I have regular meetings with my team members individually each week. Helps us discuss project issues and stay in touch among the chaos of the regular work week.
As for the team unity thing, sure I can roll with that, if the purpose is explicit. And even a “unity” meeting should have some idea of what you want out of it. Is it an open forum to discuss things? Is it social? If people know what’s expected, they can participate in a valuable way.
I’d also argue that you can’t force unity or culture. Having a meeting will not make it so if you don’t have it, though making sure you all have time to interact with each other can help build a sense of team. I find that folks tend to resist and even resent the idea of “we’re all going to get together for team building now”, because it feels forced and not like a natural part of building work relationships. Thoughts on that?
I guess it’s a balancing act, because having regular meetings to “feel in touch” can quickly become regular meetings just for the sake of having meetings.
I think what I’d like to see out of any team I work with is using more collaboration tools (as you said) in order to respect people’s time, and use any face-to-face time as a time to reconnect on a human level with the people you work with.
So team-building, but not with traditional exercises (as you said, people resent it), but with the genuine goal of getting to know each other – whether that’s with stated social interaction time or shared experiences (preferably outside the office environment).
Sound good to you?
Amber, we used to have a nomenclature for meetings that helped us a lot, especially as everyone used it and knew what to expect. We had 4 types of meetings and even a meeting could be a hybrid.
1. Information Meetings (I love your suggestion of posting info online someplace – however sometimes you do need to get everyone in a room)
2. Brainstorm Meetings (You mention these as well, with many online tools available for this I could see it being virtual, however, there is no substtute for the energy that gets generated in this type of meeting.) Knowing that the meeting is for brainstorming, you can ask people to do some research ahead of time to be prepared.
3. Decision Meetings (These can be standalone meetings, or the last part of an Info or Brainstorm meeting.) It is great when people know going in that the meeting will end with a decision – how many meetings have we attended where nothing gets decided – it is so frustrating.
4. No Agenda Meetings (Seems non-sensical to even have these, but sometimes they can be very valuable – I guess the 2.0 way to think about these would be to call them un-meetings. People figure out what’s important once they have assembled, and it will then turn into some sort of hybrid between info/brainstorming/decision type meeting.) I used to host a monthly staff breakfast with no-agenda, they turned out to be some of the very best interactions with staff.
Thanks for taking time to write your thoughts down – glad you didn’t have to have a meeting first 😉
Mark
Amber, we used to have a nomenclature for meetings that helped us a lot, especially as everyone used it and knew what to expect. We had 4 types of meetings and even a meeting could be a hybrid.
1. Information Meetings (I love your suggestion of posting info online someplace – however sometimes you do need to get everyone in a room)
2. Brainstorm Meetings (You mention these as well, with many online tools available for this I could see it being virtual, however, there is no substtute for the energy that gets generated in this type of meeting.) Knowing that the meeting is for brainstorming, you can ask people to do some research ahead of time to be prepared.
3. Decision Meetings (These can be standalone meetings, or the last part of an Info or Brainstorm meeting.) It is great when people know going in that the meeting will end with a decision – how many meetings have we attended where nothing gets decided – it is so frustrating.
4. No Agenda Meetings (Seems non-sensical to even have these, but sometimes they can be very valuable – I guess the 2.0 way to think about these would be to call them un-meetings. People figure out what’s important once they have assembled, and it will then turn into some sort of hybrid between info/brainstorming/decision type meeting.) I used to host a monthly staff breakfast with no-agenda, they turned out to be some of the very best interactions with staff.
Thanks for taking time to write your thoughts down – glad you didn’t have to have a meeting first 😉
Mark
Amber:
This is a great list of how to handle meetings. I think you could also include a suggestion that leaders regularly ask themselves if meetings are still necessary. For instance, if they have a sales meeting every Monday morning, is it really doing anybody any good? If it isn’t, it probably needs to either be scrapped or turned into an opportunity to use the time wisely (perhaps bringing in guest speakers?)
I also find that people sometimes insist upon face-to-face meetings when a short phone call could work just as well.
Nice article!
Julie T.
http://www.jadcc.com
http://www.jadcc.com/blog
Amber:
This is a great list of how to handle meetings. I think you could also include a suggestion that leaders regularly ask themselves if meetings are still necessary. For instance, if they have a sales meeting every Monday morning, is it really doing anybody any good? If it isn’t, it probably needs to either be scrapped or turned into an opportunity to use the time wisely (perhaps bringing in guest speakers?)
I also find that people sometimes insist upon face-to-face meetings when a short phone call could work just as well.
Nice article!
Julie T.
http://www.jadcc.com
http://www.jadcc.com/blog
I think I’ve been having bad meetings with my team most of the time. Last year I started a small startup project and for a while it went bad, because we didn’t achieved our goals. I think much of that “almost failure” was to ineffective meetings. I’ll make sure to write this steps down and paste them on my wall, to remember until they become automatic in me.
What I do in meetings is set up time limits for each subject that helps a bit, but I was missing a whole lot. Thanks sharing and now I’ll work to put it in practice.
I think I’ve been having bad meetings with my team most of the time. Last year I started a small startup project and for a while it went bad, because we didn’t achieved our goals. I think much of that “almost failure” was to ineffective meetings. I’ll make sure to write this steps down and paste them on my wall, to remember until they become automatic in me.
What I do in meetings is set up time limits for each subject that helps a bit, but I was missing a whole lot. Thanks sharing and now I’ll work to put it in practice.
I have been holding bi-weekly meetings with my Customer Service Team for nearly a year now for two-fold reasoning: to communicate issues/solicit input for a solution (the face-to-face setting gives us that brainstorming energy) and to do some covert team-building. I hand out an agenda (though I’m rarely organized enough to distribute ahead of time…I keep a running list of topics in an Outlook folder between meetings and then shape them into the agenda and go over it with my boss the afternoon before), keep us on topic and try and communicate things by email when appropriate. Here’s something I’d like some advice on, though…
How can I keep my team from developing a crowd mentality in these meetings? People who understand and claim to buy into my or the company’s goals and motivations in one-on-one conversations will sometimes jump on a negative bandwagon in a group setting. Whether it’s war stories turned bitching session or crossed arms and pursed lips, the emotions take over and things spiral. I have one or two team members who are especially prone to set the team down this road. It bothers me the most when they direct their frustrations at another department instead of looking for solutions. I know some of this is inevitable but I wonder if anyone has any suggestions for me that might make me a better manager…thanks!
.-= Beth Coetzee´s last blog ..Perspective: View from a High Horse =-.
I have been holding bi-weekly meetings with my Customer Service Team for nearly a year now for two-fold reasoning: to communicate issues/solicit input for a solution (the face-to-face setting gives us that brainstorming energy) and to do some covert team-building. I hand out an agenda (though I’m rarely organized enough to distribute ahead of time…I keep a running list of topics in an Outlook folder between meetings and then shape them into the agenda and go over it with my boss the afternoon before), keep us on topic and try and communicate things by email when appropriate. Here’s something I’d like some advice on, though…
How can I keep my team from developing a crowd mentality in these meetings? People who understand and claim to buy into my or the company’s goals and motivations in one-on-one conversations will sometimes jump on a negative bandwagon in a group setting. Whether it’s war stories turned bitching session or crossed arms and pursed lips, the emotions take over and things spiral. I have one or two team members who are especially prone to set the team down this road. It bothers me the most when they direct their frustrations at another department instead of looking for solutions. I know some of this is inevitable but I wonder if anyone has any suggestions for me that might make me a better manager…thanks!
.-= Beth Coetzee´s last blog ..Perspective: View from a High Horse =-.
Amber,
Strategic mtg mgmt should be required course work in every B-School curriculum. There is a formal process that can and should be taught. But instead, we just assume everyone knows how to run an effective meeting. Or on the other side, there is little realization of, or desire to measure the real $$$ that are wasted by ineffective meetings.
I would generally agree with your list for effective meeting elements.
While it may be implicit in #1 – building an agenda – there’s key components that really needs to be spelled out. Having an agenda needs to go beyond just spelling out what you want to cover. Pre-meeting preparation for all participants needs to be a requirement. So the agenda needs to outline not only the “what” is to be covered; but also who needs to come with what ammo locked and loaded.
As far as how to build the agenda, I’m trying to implement a process currently for one recurring meeting that I inherited. This is also an effective way to gauge the value of your meeting. As the leaders, require the participants to build the agenda themselves. Leveraging social community tools or ideation tools can facilitate this. People are now required to submit agenda item ideas. And, participants vote and promote agenda items. And, oh by the way, if no ideas are submitted, then we don’t hold the meeting. And if this happens consistently over time, you’ve got your answer on the value of the meeting. Dump it.
Before I get too long winded here, final point. Within the body of the meeting, effective outcomes also require a formal meeting process. Again, I think this is implicit in your list, but a formal framework is absolutely necessary.
P.S. I hate meetings! largely because, as you’ve articulated, most people suck at doing them.
.-= Barry Dalton´s last blog ..The Simple Truth =-.
Amber,
Strategic mtg mgmt should be required course work in every B-School curriculum. There is a formal process that can and should be taught. But instead, we just assume everyone knows how to run an effective meeting. Or on the other side, there is little realization of, or desire to measure the real $$$ that are wasted by ineffective meetings.
I would generally agree with your list for effective meeting elements.
While it may be implicit in #1 – building an agenda – there’s key components that really needs to be spelled out. Having an agenda needs to go beyond just spelling out what you want to cover. Pre-meeting preparation for all participants needs to be a requirement. So the agenda needs to outline not only the “what” is to be covered; but also who needs to come with what ammo locked and loaded.
As far as how to build the agenda, I’m trying to implement a process currently for one recurring meeting that I inherited. This is also an effective way to gauge the value of your meeting. As the leaders, require the participants to build the agenda themselves. Leveraging social community tools or ideation tools can facilitate this. People are now required to submit agenda item ideas. And, participants vote and promote agenda items. And, oh by the way, if no ideas are submitted, then we don’t hold the meeting. And if this happens consistently over time, you’ve got your answer on the value of the meeting. Dump it.
Before I get too long winded here, final point. Within the body of the meeting, effective outcomes also require a formal meeting process. Again, I think this is implicit in your list, but a formal framework is absolutely necessary.
P.S. I hate meetings! largely because, as you’ve articulated, most people suck at doing them.
.-= Barry Dalton´s last blog ..The Simple Truth =-.
P.P.S. here’s a diddy I have fun with on occasion (I’m just in that kind of mood today). Schedule your next meeting for 34 minutes (or 17 or some other random odd number) and see who picks up on it. Then….stick to it.
.-= Barry Dalton´s last blog ..The Simple Truth =-.
P.P.S. here’s a diddy I have fun with on occasion (I’m just in that kind of mood today). Schedule your next meeting for 34 minutes (or 17 or some other random odd number) and see who picks up on it. Then….stick to it.
.-= Barry Dalton´s last blog ..The Simple Truth =-.
I use both Adsense and Adbrite and i can say that adbrite is also a good source of income but not as good as adsense..;-
I use both Adsense and Adbrite and i can say that adbrite is also a good source of income but not as good as adsense..;-
I use both Adsense and Adbrite and i can say that adbrite is also a good source of income but not as good as adsense.:’-
I use both Adsense and Adbrite and i can say that adbrite is also a good source of income but not as good as adsense.:’-