This week's theory lecture on communication in workgroups and teams gets very practical when applied to the most common team communication venue - meetings.
For many, meetings are the bane of organizational existence. Sometimes that is because of bad behavior at meetings. Sometimes it is poor meeting management. Sometimes is due to lack of clarity on why we are meeting, what we are supposed to accomplish and what my particular role in this situation actually is.
How would you grade your organization on the general quality of your meetings? In your experience, what makes "bad" meetings bad? What makes "good" meetings good?
What makes bad meetings in my opinion is when the organizer is not well prepared for the meeting and as the article pointed, calls for an " unnecessary meeting." This happens in my company quit often, the routine employee meetings which are mandatory for us to attend seem to be a waist of time. We are requested to attend a weekly meeting which lasts for more than and hours, sometimes the organizer, who is the head of the department, would sit there talking about the same stuff we talked about last week. It would seem that the organizer doesn't have an agenda but is committed to waist everyone's time.
ReplyDeleteI think the best way to solve this issue, and have good meetings instead, is to do what number five of the suggestions in the article. The head of the department "needs to determine if the meetings are necessary." He might consider sending out an email clarifying the reason of the meeting and an agenda of topics that need to be addressed. He would also specify who are involved in the discussion of these topics and that they are the ones who need to attend, but if anyone else has any input they are also welcome to attend. That would save so much time for those who attend every meeting even if the issues being discussed have nothing to do with their work.
A good meeting is well planned, has a limited agenda and is short. The leader has great facilitation skills and the members have good meeting etiquette.
ReplyDeleteA poor meeting runs way to long, there are too many topics, members have poor meeting etiquette and there is no control by the meeting leaders.
An organization I worked for was well known for having meetings about meetings. A study was done regarding time management. Needless to say as a result of that study it was determined that employees spent too much time in meetings and did not feel the meetings were productive.
One of the benefits that resulted in that study was facilitation training and effective meeting training that all employees were mandated to participate in. As a result, I can say that meeting that I attended after the training was implemented over were more effective, shorter and well run. I still benefit from those classes today. I have been able to show my clients, some of whom have never held meetings, how to effectively participate in meetings. I have also been able to teach them how to hold effective meetings...
XYZ manufacturing company would hold daily meetings every morning to go over the status of customer orders. The COO made the meetings mandatory for all production managers who happened to work next to each other throughout the day. The COO had also made the recent decision of which ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning, used for tracking, parts, customer orders, etc.) system to use and this ERP did not provide the employees the tools required to do their job properly. This mistake was the reason for the meetings. The meetings became the "work-around" for the poor ERP system. Instead of providing them the ability to commmunicate amongst themselves, he made it very clear that everything went through him and he made the decisions.
ReplyDeleteThese employees hated the meetings because they were treated as if they could not do their jobs. They resented the fact that someone who knew nothing of their daily task made the decision of which ERP tool they would use, without their input. They resented the fact that the reason for the meetings were because the tool did not work. AND they resented the fact that no one could say that aloud in the meeting. There was a big pink elephant in the room and everyone acted as if it wasn't there. If the employees themselves were empowered they could have easily made these decisions themselves.
Bottom line, meetings don't work if the guy running them is seen as a total "tool" and doesn't respect the opinion of any of the members. They also don't work if people cannot speak openly and honestly. The COO may as well have had the meeting with himself.
My current organization is not very efficient or structured with many of the meetings held.There are certain meeting that have a more laid back atmosphere and thus produce less than desired results. Recently there has been an operations management overhaul and along with that have come structured changes. One of the most refreshing changes is a structured daily briefing. Everyone has a chance to speak and must wait until previous speaker is done. The chair is very effective at enforcing this rule and in turn the meetings have trended to the more efficient route. People are encouraged to share their opinions as well as offer countering viewpoints as long as they are done in a professional and respectful manner regardless of the title or position on the organizations chart. Bottom line is the ops team has become a more cohesive and effective unit as a result of this change which is a true change from where it originated.
ReplyDeleteMy current employer has an effective meeting process in place. Meetings are limited via time, number of participants, number of topics and they are carefully recorded to eliminate differences of opinion concerning what was said. This process was implemented after an employee survey revealed the employees' negative opinions towards our meeting culture. "Death by Meeting" anyone!
ReplyDeleteReebok tends to have an ineffective meeting process. While meetings occur on a daily basis, time management seems to be a big problem. In fact, meetings are always overlapping and employees think nothing of arriving 5-10 minutes late. When people show up late the meeting starts late, thus throwing off everyone's schedule.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, a good meeting is well planned, has a set time frame, and has a structured agenda. Furthermore, there should be one person facilitating the meeting and he/she should seek to ensure that the meeting stays on task. On the other hand bad meetings tend to be long, drawn out, and poorly managed. Moreover, bad meetings often lack structure and result in minimal or no objectives being discussed and/or accomplished.
In my experiences the organization I work for does not have high-quality meetings. In general, meetings tend to be too long, cover too many topics, and are not properly organized. These factors result in ineffective meetings where participants lose focus and objectives are not adequately achieved. The poor organization in meetings tends to be perpetuated throughout our company’s multiple departments. Additionally, meetings are often held when they are not necessary. These factors have led to a negative connotation surrounding meetings throughout our organization.
ReplyDeleteIn my organizational experiences bad meetings are the result of inadequate planning, attempting to cover too many topics at one time, not sticking to schedules, and involving too many people in the meeting. On the other hand, good meetings occur when the meeting is truly necessary, a clear and concise agenda is developed and followed, and all participants have been provided with the appropriate information prior to the meeting so they are on task and informed. In order for successful performance to occur it is important for organizations to ensure meetings are properly organized and effective communication is utilized.
At my work, I would consider a successful meaning one that does not take a long time, has a clear agenda, and does not try to cover too many topics. In addition to these three, the meeting is only successful if everyone that attended the meeting was better off and more knowledgeable than before the meeting started. If the meeting was short, had a clear agenda, and didn't cover too many topics, it would only be effective if the people in the meeting came out with more knowledge than before the meeting.
ReplyDeleteI've sat through meetings that were not successful because they lasted too long and people started to not pay attention and missed some very important points that were discussed in the latter part of the meeting. It's important to discuss the important points in the beging of the meeting because everyone will/should be paying attention and be very focused. As the meetings drag on, people lose focus and stop being an active listener.