Managing Meetings

Submitted by jessetrucks on Tue, 2005-11-29 16:15.

How does the old joke go?

"Bored with work? Tired of toiling away? Have a meeting!"

With most organizations today, we all too often fall prey to unproductive meetings. This leads to wasted time, frustration, and lower morale. This situation is so common, according to my anecdotal findings, that I wanted to find out if this really is just my own organization or company. In fact, it is not such an isolated or recent phenomenon. A recent USA Today article, talks about a 20 year study on this very topic. The results? Directly from the article:

[On] average employees spend 8½ hours a week in meetings. Middle managers spend 10½ hours, and top executives spend 12.

Is there a Solution? In short: Yes, there is.

The USA Today article supports some of my recent efforts to reduce my painful meeting overhead.

These are some suggestions we (the article and I) have:

  • If a meeting isn't completely necessary, don't have one.
  • You would think this is an obvious statement. Yet, as we show day in and day out, meetings are regularly held without a solid purpose or goals in mind. If a regularly scheduled meeting will not require any discussion on its next occurrence, cancel it. You can always call a special meeting if something comes up with enough urgency to require discussion before the next normally scheduled time.

  • Don't ever hold "status" meetings.
  • Distribute status documentation to those who have a stake or vested interest instead of getting together to read out the status. If someone has further questions or a point requires discussion after knowing the current status of a particular project or issue, then either email, IM, or other means of communication may be more suited for clarification. Once the point(s) are clarified, update the documentation and redistribute the updated versions or links to online records. If an interactive discussion is required at some point to agree on the updates or changes, then call a meeting together - following the other points of advice, of course.

  • Always have an agenda with as much specific detail as possible.
  • Without an agenda for a meeting, important points often don't get the attention they deserve, and new or less critical issues often get too much attention. Unless the meeting is called for a very specific subset of issues and is intended to be highly focused on those few items, consider adding a "roundtable" item so allow for raising other issues if time permits. An agenda should be very clear on what items are open for discussion, who will introduce and lead the discussion, who chairs or coordinates the meeting, and, when appropriate, how long each topic is scheduled for coverage. In really heavily packed meetings with limited available time, listing time limits for issues is very critical. If something may require further discussion, table it, schedule a meeting of only the required participants, and move on to the next agenda item.

  • Whenever possible, produce or distribute documents or other tools in advance of the meeting.
  • Sending out presentations or documents for discussion before a meeting allows more people to bring informed options and ideas to the table once the meeting commences. This greatly facilitates discussion on productive levels and reduces time wasted making sure you get a copy of everything to everyone. Obviously in the case of live presentations this is moot, but at least advance warning of the agenda is a good idea.

  • Don't be afraid to drop agenda items if no discussion is possible or warranted by the time the meeting begins.
  • This is fairly self-explanatory. If no discussion is warranted, simply make that know or decide that quickly, then offer to provide status information to attendees after the meeting adjourns. this greatly reduces wasted time during the meeting and allows for participants to focus more closely on those items that still need discussion.

    These are just some ideas for having more productive meetings. Just by following the above guidelines you will save a great deal of effort and improve the level of participation of your meeting attendees when you do have to call for a meeting.

    Trackback URL for this post:

    http://lopsa.org/trackback/122

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
    Submitted by yesthattom on Thu, 2005-12-01 18:40.

    Don't ever hold "status" meetings? I disagree.

    "Use the right tool at the right time." Status meetings are good for making sure people's feet are held to the fire. It's amazing how motivating it is to have your milestones be done on time you know that a missed deadline will mean looking bad in front of many peers.

    The best status meetings I've been involved with coordinated with an MS-Project or similar list of milestones. The moderator reads out the name of each milestone, and the stucky reports a percent complete. If they are halfway through their allocated time for a milestone and their percent complete isn't about 50, we stop to find out why. Management then figures out if they have to apply the "management rule of 3" -- managers are powerless to do more than allocate one of 3 things: time (adjust the deadline), features (delete features), or resources (add more people).

    It's also important to have these meetings so that when people miss deadlines the stakeholders can all be in the room to work out contingency plans right away.

    Even with a good status meeting there are two things to watch out for:

    -- Too many people. A status meeting should have only a key contact from each part of the project. The minutes should be distributed widely.

    -- People that don't realize a status-meeting is for giving status, not solving problems. I'm always careful to put "STATUS MEETING" in the subject: line of any email reminders about such a meeting. That way when people start problem-solving (usually 2 people, who are now wasting the time of n-2 people in the room) I can cut them off by reminding them that it is a *status* meeting, not a meeting for problem-solving. Thus, they can work out when they will meet off-line and email their results to the larger group. Often they can stick around after the meeting and solve the issue right then and there, or stay a little longer on the teleconference line. That saves one round of scheduling.

    Tom

    Submitted by jessetrucks on Fri, 2006-07-28 05:12.

    So, if someone else is holding a status meeting, but it's clearly not as organized as you suggest it should be, is there anything I can do as a participant to guide it in the direction you suggest?

    We have meetings similar to what you describe for our formalized projects led by project managers, yet the adhoc groups doing less formal projects tend to degenerate in a series of wasteful meetings.

    I'm still trying to find a balance for how many of what kind of meetings to hold for any given project (just like the rest of us, I suppose).

    Anyone have ideas?

    --
    Jesse Trucks, GCIH, GCUX
    jesse@cyberius.net

    Submitted by dparter on Thu, 2005-12-01 12:27.

    the advice makes sense, but how many of us are in a position to make it happen?

    if it is my meeting, I can try and set the standards, but without buy-in from everyone, it is hard to change the way people behave or set expectations.

    does anyone have a success story in changing their group's culture as far as meetings go?

    Submitted by jessetrucks on Fri, 2006-07-28 05:36.

    When you posted this question, I had no success story to tell. Now I have a partial success story.

    For some months now, I've been on a new group of just a small number of people (varying from 4 to 7 depending on the active project). The culture was for lot's and lot's of verbal status and work meetings. It is now more about adhoc collaboration in doing work and written status. We make sure to get a status of our own action items (or those items we are responsible for tracking) prior to meeting for discussion or performing work in groups. This eliminates the usual spate of questions about what work is done and what work needs doing, and it encourages the attitude that meeting is for discussing late items, roadblocks, next steps, and other things we all need to decide on or discuss as a group.

    This situation has not extended to our supervisor, unfortunately. He still prefers to do everything verbally in status meetings of the type that means we do not move toward any objectives during the meeting beyond each person describing what is already in writing: what work is complete and what work is ahead of us. To combat this over time, we still send out written status descriptions with a large amount of detail. This way, when we have another one of the apparently wasteful status meetings, we continually refer to the contents of the documents we already wrote and distributed, making sure to specifically state that we are repeating what our document already states. Also, because we do already have it in writing, we as the working members of the project(s) try using the time to discuss things that move toward our projects' goals, rather than just repeat the status everyone already knows.

    This is marginally effective with people that have a certain style of micromanagement that our current supervisor uses, but at least we feel like we aren't completely wasting our time on every meeting - just most of the ones with our supervisor, unfortunately.

    Time will still tell whether this makes a difference, but it's all good practice for us to use our time more effectively.

    --
    Jesse Trucks, GCIH, GCUX
    jesse@cyberius.net