Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Beating the Meetings Monster - improve effectiveness at work
LifeHack: Do you spend too much time in meetings? If so, you are in good company. One of the most common complaints of office workers is that their productivity is hampered by too many unproductive meetings. Ineffective meetings lead to frustration. They waste the time of the participants and they undermine the effectiveness of the whole organization.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Some good advice in this article, although implementing it seems like the rub to me. "Offer your apologies and ask for a summary" is simple to write down but if people [especially your superiors] expect you to physically be there then you likely need to BE THERE.
This article also assumes the people planning the meeting have allowed for enough TIME [beforehand in its planning and during] for them to be laid out logically and efficiently; also something easier to say than do.
There does seem to be a impasse between too many meetings are inefficient and too few meetings don't communicate enough information to get the job done.
We have discussed this times before and generally i agree with this . Meetings can be a wiast of time. meetings about meetings and just most meetings are a big time sucker. for the most part a good leader should be able to rally their troops to an existent that meetings when necessary are short and concise. it is signs of a strong leader. but those who are not strong, those who have meetings for the hell of it , are showing weakness and generally just wasting peoples time, and time really is money.
The article higlights some valuable points. I have worked in organisations where we have had weekly planning committee meetings which lasted all day (9a.m.-3p.m.). The meetings are necessary when planning complex events, however I don't think that everyone had to attend every meeting, as the article stated. However it was manditory that everyone on the committee attend each meeting. The thing is that you can have an agenda, send out previous meeting mintues early and plan for the meeting structure; however many unforseen factors can prolong a meeting- unprepared contributing members,new event challenges etc.
I however disagree that afternoon meeting are better; unless ofcourse they end on time. A meeting in the morning can run into the afternoon easily and not be as upsetting to employees as a meeting in the afternoon which goes pass work hours. (which I have witnessed.
A meeting, just like anything else, is just another tool. A tool that can be used efficiently or one that can be used in a way that it was not meant and thus made completely useless.
One part of a meeting which is regularly overlooked (even if one is made) is the agenda. An agenda is not just a list of topics, but also allocated time to the matter.
Robert's Rules of Order is a book filled with rules and procedures for running a meeting. It is the standard by which many meeting are run. However, while following all the rules may not be practical (because of the somewhat steep learning curve) the guidelines are good ones and something that can be applied universally.
Meetings are incredible tools, when used properly. The article outlines six key principles that promote a successful environment for which a meeting can be held in. Like Jacob mentioned, although you may work hard and create an ideal environment for a meeting, you are unable to control the preparation and participation of those included in the meeting.
What this article adds to the "general understanding" of how meetings should be run are points 4, 5, and 6. In many companies, it is rare to find a department that reflects upon the productivity of the meeting as a whole. The leader of the meeting may reflect, but often people are too busy to give a few minutes of thoughtful reflection to the cause of why that meeting may have been successful, or not. Often, disciplines are used for running meetings, although the leader may not know that he is specifically using the "de Bono's Six Hats". If the leader adopts a wide variety of disciplines, he will be able to pick and choose from them, and create a discipline that is most appropriate for each specific meeting. Lastly...the morning meeting. I had never considered this to cause radical influence upon the effectiveness of a meeting. Removing the morning meeting is something that is not widely considered, but sporadically practiced.
I think we encounter many of these concerns with our weekly production meetings. While having a designated meeting time and location each week is reliable and comforting, having imposed meetings sometimes makes people in the room question why they are there if they have nothing to contribute. What is important to remember is that in an artistic setting it's safe to assume almost any design decision is going to affect at least one other person and often affects departments in ways only they might pick up on. I don't think any of us properly prep for these weekly meetings since topics are often left open at the end of meetings. Perhaps not imposing a 30 minute time limit might allow people to fully engage a problem. On the other hand, perhaps our time (as the article suggests) is actually better spent working and not sitting in a meeting.
One of the things I really like about this article is suggesting a meeting have a stop time. I think that is one of the things that keeps our production meetings so succinct with everyone in the room. Having a solid stop time can make everyone more productive and more intent on staying on topic. I also really like the advice to meet in the morning and not the afternoon. Having that time to warm up your mind and get focused can be the difference between a highly productive meeting and one that is stagnant and dry.
This article brings up a lot of good points that managers can use while running meetings. Having a solid stop time is a good way to keep people focused, though presents a problem when an issue isn't able to be resolved within the time limit. As far as limiting the amount of attendees in a production meeting, it is difficult to do so without excluding people who need the information that is being distributed or who may have the answer to a question that is being asked. Agendas are a great way to keep a meeting on topic, but I have witnessed many production meetings where the agenda ends up being long winded and just repeats things from previous meetings, which wastes even more time while people try to fish through the mass of information for what is actually a priority.
I think that while this article highlights some very important guidelines that certainly can help a meeting be more effective and run more smoothly, it also assumes an atmosphere in which all participants in a meeting are more or less on the same level. However, especially in an academic setting like CMU, there are numerous people that, according to the author, might not be deemed "essential" to the purposes of the meeting, but nonetheless, at CMU, they should be there (I'm thinking mostly of advisors). Furthermore, having an agenda does not necessarily mean that it will be followed, or even should be followed. It is surprising to me that the article does not really talk about pre-meeting communication between departments, since in my experience, this is the biggest tool that can be used to maximize efficiency. More than an agenda that simply lists the topics that will be brought up for discussion, communication between departments means that everyone is aware of the entire situation and so can come to the meeting prepared with possible solutions rather than having to discuss the problem itself within the meeting.
Meetings can be very useful, but often more artificial problems are created. I think that those that spend all day in meetings are under the impression that is the norm. As a production manager, much of my jobs is to get people to talk, but that doesn't mean that I need to create a meeting for every little thing that comes up. This article is a good guide for having a productive meeting. Maybe if we follow more strict guidelines like these, we would require less meetings.
This article definitely carries some good advice on the dos and don'ts of meeting having. It is important to make every meeting as effective as possible so more gets accomplished and time is not wasted with a lack of focus. Although they are definitely one of the more drudgery parts of being in any workplace, they are necessary to bring people into the same mindset.
I don't necessarily agree with every point, such as certain times of the day being better than others. Every time of day has its pitfalls, and one must just be sure to plan accordingly. Planning is the central tool for success in every scenario discussed here, and essentially to the idea of holding well formatted meetings in itself.
If some of these steps are taken to heart, fewer meetings may be necessary and more effective communication between colleagues and employers may be brought to light in a workplace.
This article made several good points, although some of them seem to be common sense (but even obvious things need saying). One of my largest meeting-pet-peeves is when there is no designated end time. I would even prefer a meeting that is scheduled for a long time than no specific time at all, because then if the meeting ends early, you have some surprise free time where you can catch up on something that you need to work on. If the meeting doesn't designate an end time, though, you can almost guarantee that it will go long, and that people will talk in circles, wasting time, before a decision is made, purely because they don't have to keep to a schedule.
I had never considered not having meetings in the morning, but it does make sense. After thinking about it, it seems that almost all of my meetings are scheduled in the afternoon, so perhaps I was subconsciously aware that this was more productive.
Post a Comment