|
Making
meetings more productive
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| Planning
the agenda for next week’s big meeting. |
|
|
 t
seems like almost everyone at the workplace has a complaint
about meetings. They’re too long, too large, a waste
of time, or a forum for the irrelevant.
And with today’s reduced workforce, no one can afford
to spend her or his time sitting in meetings that are not
productive, says Patti Hathaway, author of Untying the
‘Nots’ of Change Before You’re Fit to be
Tied.
In the past, meetings tended to include mostly executives
and supervisors. But with task forces and work groups so common
these days, employees at every level of an organization are
likely to be participating in—as well as leading—meetings.
Some meetings are held on a regular basis, others are set
up to address new and emerging issues. Some are geared to
information-sharing, others to problem-solving.
Whatever their purpose, meetings can be made less frustrating
and more productive. Here are some questions to ask:
Who
should make the decisions?
When you are planning a meeting, it’s important
to consider who should be sitting around the table
and involved in the decision-making.
Here are four key factors to evaluate that relate
to the potential impact of any decision, according
to management guru Peter Drucker.
What is the degree
of futurity?
In other words, for how long does the decision
commit the organization? And how fast can it be
reversed?
The longer the commitment, the higher in the organization
the decision should be made.
What is the functional impact?
What other areas will be affected by a decisions?
If it will only affect one area, make the decision
at that level.
What is the qualitative impact?
If the decision involves basic principles of conduct,
ethical values, social and political beliefs or
organizational philosophies, it should move to
a higher level for determination or review.
What is the frequency of recurrence?
Is the decision rare or of a recurrent nature?
Recurrent decisions require the establishment
of a general rule. And once this rule is determined,
its application can be decided on a lower level.
A rare or unique decision has to be treated as
a distinct event and thought through at a high
level. |
|
Is the meeting really necessary?
Is it the only way to accomplish your goal? For example, if
your purpose is to provide information, an email or conference
call may work just as well. If you need a consensus of opinions
on a particular issue, a phone or email poll of participants
might do the trick. Or if you are meeting simply because that’s
what you’re used to doing, there may be a more efficient
way to keep your staff connected.
Who should be included? The
conventional wisdom is that people at meetings should (a)
understand the business at hand, (b) have the power to make
decisions, (c) have responsibility for implementing a decision
that was made or (d) be affected by any decisions that were
made.
But does each meeting generate decisions that are equally
weighty and require the same level of staff to attend? With
some exceptions, decisions should be made at the lowest possible
level and as close to the action as possible, according to
the eminent management consultant Peter Drucker. This suggests
that a meeting should include a variety of people depending
on the topic and the level of decision that will be made.
In some situations resource people should weigh in specific
topics. (See the sidebar for more on decision-making.)
Is the meeting well-timed?
A survey by Office Team, an administrative staffing company
in California, found “meetings that last too long”
was listed first among the leading “workplace time waster”
by 27 percent of respondents.
Management consultant Brad Cooper of Littleton, Colorado,
has reported a sharp increase in the number of clients seeking
help in shortening their meetings. “There’s tremendous
pressure to keep sessions short,” he said.
Marketing expert Aaron Keller of Minneapolis even tried using
hard, uncomfortable chairs at meetings of his company, Capsule,
to encourage people to “talk quickly.” Apparently
this worked. Company meetings now take about half an hour,
compared to an hour or more they used to take.
But bear in mind that people don’t like to feel railroaded
into a hasty decision that they will have to live with. And,
in terms of schedule, be aware of the fact that it can be
difficult for many employees to attend meetings that start
at 8 in the morning or after 5 in the afternoon.
Does the meeting have a clear agenda?
People like to have an agenda in their hands and they often
resent a meeting with no advance plan, goals or outcomes.
An agenda should be as specific as possible. Its purpose is
to provide a useful map to follow. It lets participants know
that they will be expected to evaluate what has been done
as well as generate new ideas.
It’s a good idea to circulate the agenda ahead of time.
For regularly scheduled meetings, input from participants—separately
or through an agenda committee—will ensure “buy
in” from others. Those workers who are part of planning
the agenda tend to participate in meetings more fully and
be more committed to the outcome. 
|
|
|
