They reviewed notes from hundreds of meetings over five years and, for a book Boudett cowrote called Meeting Wise, created a checklist on how to conduct an effective one.
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Two Items That Aren't On Your Meeting Agenda, But Should Be
They reviewed notes from hundreds of meetings over five years and, for a book Boudett cowrote called Meeting Wise, created a checklist on how to conduct an effective one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Despite how short this article is, it covers quite a bit of extremely valid and new points that I never thought of. "As her colleague Meghan Lockwood puts it, "We’re asking people to open up their practices to one another, to push each other to improve, and that just can’t happen without trust." In other words, letting people share something about their lives "is an incredibly efficient use of time." It's always been perceived that chit chatting is a waste of time and that getting down to straight hard business is the only way to go. And it's true-- that has really been my entire perception of how "business meetings" work; that you go and sit in and be very professional. I also find it really funny that there's this whole idea that you can't have fun and be business professional at the same time. It's seen that having small talk is too casual and informal when this article sort of proves the exact opposite. It improves relationships and creates a more productive and trusting environment. I also like what the article mentioned about airing greivances at the end of a meeting as opposed to letting it fester and get in the way. By doing that, it really does skip the busy work and cuts straight to the point: the issue at hand, which in turn makes the entire meeting and process more effective.
While I agree that having time for socializing is important because we all want to share what is going on in our lives, putting it into a meeting, especially the start, sounds like a bad idea. If people see that there is consistently five minutes of just talking, they're going to start showing up five minutes later, which can easily turn into more. However, the article does talk about getting to know your teammates more builds up trust, and when there is friendship and trust in a group, things do go a lot more smoothly. When you get to know people you’ll like them enough to get to a meeting on time so you can take advantage of that talking time. I think this step has a lot to do with the leader of the meeting getting the conversations started and ending on time. When people see that they are consistent in the amount of time they get to talk they’ll feel like their time is being valued and the meeting isn’t going to run on long because they spent too much time socializing at the beginning.
I really like the idea of having a review section at the end of meetings to celebrate the things that went well and to critique the things that can be improved. There is a great psychological study that says that when kids have play dates, it doesn’t matter how the play date as a whole went, only the last ten minutes are what they are going to remember from the time spent. This means that the kids can have a great time, but if in the last ten minutes one kids hits the other, the kid being hit is going to remember the whole experience as negative. And if this theory is applied to meetings, it could save the negative emotions related to the meetings if in the reflection time at the end of meetings was a positive one wherein everyone could feel recognized and productive. This would be a great thing to try in production meetings.
I really like the first pout about allowing time for socialization during meetings. I have always felt I am more successful in a group when I am comfortable with the other participants - and I achieve that through casual conversation. I want to work with people I enjoy, not just any random people. The element of trust is very important in any kind of business or educational system.
Something we learned in my psych class, however, was about the differences between a cohesive and diverse group. In this scenario, it meant a social or racially cohesive group. If you are in a group of people who are similar to you (and you are genetically dispositioned to like) that often times the ideas you come up with are not as in depth or "good" as those that are come up by diverse group. The diverse group (either racially or socially) often has different opinions that lead to greater collaboration and problem solving. When you are in a cohesive group, you place the feelings of being included over letting your true ideas come out. This combined with the idea of involving sociability into a meeting might be counterintuitive.
I think this article is really neat! I think it is interesting what harvard decided to do and I think it is even more interesting that they found that the results of improvement changed dramatically based on the way a meeting was organized I find this entire concept really interesting- that the way we communicate and the organization of that communication can have such a large affect. I think the first tip that the article gives about allowing chit-chat time could be extremely helpful! I love how the article related it to the familiarity that the employees have with each other and how forming relationships can create a more welcoming and effective environment for improvement to happen. I completely agree with that idea! The more comfortable you are with a person, the more willing you are to hear them out and communicate constructively and not critically. I also think that the "Plus/Delta" concept is effective because it allows the employees to feel like they are improving and making progress with the Plus side, but also gives them goals to strive for with the Delta side.
Overall, I think this article was very interesting and can be very helpful when trying to have efficient and effective meetings.
As I’ve gone through my post-undergraduate career I have noticed that I really only see or have been part of two types of meetings – those that are efficient and go well and those that don’t accomplish anything and I just want to leave. There isn’t much of a middle ground. I think that the idea of having time for chitchat built into a meeting could help move a meeting along. Often times I find that even though the chitchat is related to the production it isn’t relevant to the whole group or it happens while others are talking about items on an agenda. The “plus/delta” idea I find would be less helpful on an “in-meeting” basis, but could be very helpful as a post meeting survey or feedback form. Personally, I always try to have enough of whatever documents I need for a meeting for everyone in the meeting. Failing that, or if it something that might not work distributed, I might use a projector so that everyone can see the same image. My opinions on production meetings might be changing.
This was a very interesting article because, rather than being based on anecdotal evidence there are real studies behind this claim. As far as the first point, that we should allow time to socialize, it seems as though we are finding in so many aspects of our lives that it is no longer possible to completely separate our work lives from our home lives. I don’t think this is a bad thing because I think we are approaching this as a society from the angle of making a more comfortable workplace which benefits both worlds. The second point, a meeting review, also seems to be very helpful particularly in long meetings where you might discuss many small issues but only come to a final conclusion on one or two. In addition to leaving everyone more up to date this practice probably helps everyone be more prepared with a understanding of what needs to happen at the next meeting.
These are two things I haven’t thought about before. Of course, small talk always happens at meetings, and sometimes in can result in unproductivity if it drags out too long. I like the idea of dedicating a time at the very beginning just for the participants to catch up. This would help me get a feel for how everyone is feeling that day. Then, I could better tailor my activity to suit the group dynamic. I think doing this would also allow the participants to get to know each other better, which in turn should lead to better collaboration. I’m also a fan of the second idea. Positive recognition is usually a good thing, and it can help meeting participants repeat what they did well in the future. Also, if you set aside a time for this, people are more likely to comment on things that could be changed. Otherwise, one might be too nervous to speak their mind about something with which they weren’t satisfied.
Post a Comment