Vol. 65, No. 5 — Sept./Oct. 1984 —
The Effective
Meeting
Download
PDF version
Meetings are essential to doing
business, but all too often they do not get the results intended.
This is because they are denied the importance they rate.
Here, a guide to having better meetings. And to having better
productivity...
Almost all the major decisions in business today - as well
as a great many minor ones - are made at meetings. This being
so, it is strange that the business meeting is so rarely perceived
as something separate and distinct from the set-piece meetings
of political and community groups. The literature on the subject
will tell you all about how to run a meeting at your golf
club, but it says little about how best to conduct the kind
of informal conferences that take place continually in offices
and plants every working day.
A real difference exists between the two. Meetings of a
club or school board are among elected officials who forgather
on a regular basis and are constrained to follow, however
vaguely, the established rules of order. Business meetings
are very often unstructured ad hoc affairs among pick-up
teams of managers and supervisors. By their nature, most business
meetings are none too tightly organized.
The ability to "meet" effectively under these conditions
is given no special recognition. It is commonly assumed that
running a good meeting is an exercise in natural skill. Many
companies are without policies or guidelines as to how meetings
should proceed, and training in this regard is frequently
absent from the curricula of management courses. It's as if
all that is required for a good meeting are enough chairs
to go around.
Given this hit-and-miss approach to such an important aspect
of business life, there can be little wonder that many business
people are sceptical about the usefulness of meetings. Even
senior managers are inclined to look down on them. In a survey
of 471 U.S. executives conducted by Communispond Inc. of New
York last year, 71 per cent of the respondents agreed with
the statement that meetings are "a waste of time."
It is a great shame that anyone in business - let alone
those in the top ranks - should hold meetings in such low
regard, considering all that can be accomplished when people
put their minds together. Well-run meetings generate synergy,
which means that the effect of a combination of ingredients
is greater than the sum of all their individual effects.
Why is there so much disillusionment over meetings? One
answer may be that people have attended too many of them that
never should have been held in the first place. This raises
the basic question of what a meeting is all about. It is a
gathering of two or more (for the purpose of this essay, more)
persons to do collectively what cannot be done by one person.
The number of useless meetings could be reduced if managers
were to ask themselves more often whether a meeting is really
necessary, or whether the same results could be obtained with
a memo or phone calls.
If a meeting is warranted, its purpose should be clearly
understood in advance by all concerned, since there is no
greater waste of time than a meeting at which the participants
do not know what is expected of them. If, for instance, a
decision has already been made and the object is to inform
people of it and discuss ways of putting it into effect, no
one should be under the misapprehension that the issue can
be debated again.
One of the chief complaints about meetings is that the people
attending them have not done their homework - have not studied
the relevant background material or thought over the anticipated
questions. The problem of unpreparedness can be partially
overcome by giving each participant as much advance notice
as possible, together with a clear and thorough description
of the reason for getting together, the questions to be considered,
and the information the participant is expected to have available.
The initiator of the meeting should give careful consideration
to who should be present at it. No one without a definite
reason for being there should be invited, if any choice exists.
In formal committees, etiquette must be observed, but in business
meetings it is wasteful to have people in attendance who have
no stake in the matter and nothing to contribute to the deliberations.
Nothing brings order to a meeting like an agenda, though
it may consist only of a few hastily-typed lines itemizing
the topics to be considered. If there is time to do so, an
agenda should be distributed in advance to all concerned.
If not, it should be passed around the table when people assemble.
If the timing does not permit even that, the chairman (for
sake of simplicity, we will use the word in the generic masculine
gender throughout) should inform the members verbally of the
order of business he plans to follow.
Always prepare an agenda and appoint
a chairman
This brings up the point that, except in the smallest and
briefest gatherings, a chairman should be appointed for every
meeting with the object of ensuring that it proceeds in an
orderly fashion. This is done by someone in the group suggesting
that another member take the chair.
It is the chairman's duty to begin the meeting on time,
or as soon as a reasonable number of participants has gathered.
A 15-minute delay for 10 people means the loss of 2½ man-hours.
Laggards should be given a brief summary of what has taken
place prior to their arrival so that no time is spent going
over ground already covered.
Just as a meeting should start according to the clock, it
should finish according to the clock. While a meeting in theory
should take exactly as long as it takes to accomplish its
purpose, the chairman is quite within his rights to suggest
a general time limit: "I'd like to get this over with by three-thirty,
if possible."
Taking a page from the rules of order
to
move events along
The chairman should ration out time for each item of business,
so that everything receives the consideration it merits. It
often happens that meetings linger too long over the first
couple of items, then give insufficient attention to the remainder.
By following an implicit though flexible time-table, the chairman
is able to keep the discussion in sequence. The tendency to
leapfrog over subjects can be kept in check by insisting on
taking one item at a time.
At the risk of seeming stuffy, the chairman might take a
page out of Robert's Rules of Order and call for motions
when he senses that nothing more is to be gained by further
discussion of a particular item. All that is necessary is
to ask the speaker whether he is prepared to move a motion
to put his suggestions into effect. Motions tend to focus
the discourse and set the pace of a meeting. "All the discussion
in the world will accomplish nothing; the least little motion
will result in some action," the American parliamentary expert
Darwin Patnode wrote.
Having set the pace, the chairman must strive to keep the
discussion on track and headed towards a conclusion. This
is no easy task, given the natural proclivity of many people
to ramble off the point. The chairman must diplomatically
inquire of such wanderers what the thoughts they are expressing
have to do with the immediate subject at hand.
If there is a greater menace to the proper conduct of meetings
than the irrelevant wanderer, it is the monopolizer who attempts
to dominate the discussion. In dealing with this type, the
chairman might attempt to relieve him of the floor by referring
to other participants: "What do you have to say about
that, Fred?" If the monopolizer keeps coming back for more,
the chairman must put a less subtle stop to it. He can note
that time is passing, and that others must be given a chance
to state their views.
How to deal with chit-chat and subdue
the office clown
In business meetings the rule that every participant should
be allowed sufficient time to speak is not so much a matter
of fairness as of sound management practice. The purpose of
having the meeting, after all, is to tap the experience, judgment,
knowledge and expertise of everyone in the group. The chairman
is therefore responsible for getting all the relevant views
and information possessed by the group out on the table. This
means not only clearing the way for the more diffident members
to put forth their views, but actively encouraging them to
say their piece.
Anything said at a meeting, however, should be said to the
group at large, and not in side-conversations along the table.
One way of squelching this irritating distraction is to abruptly
stop speaking in the middle of a statement, leaving the offenders
with the embarrassing sensation of being the only couple on
the floor.
Humour is welcome in most facets of life, but it can be
carried too far at meetings. If a would-be comedian gains
control of the show, it can become all comic relief. It is,
to be sure, difficult for a chairman to control facetious
members of the group without appearing to be a wet blanket,
but a suitably straight-faced demeanour and an immediate return
to the discussion after a wisecrack has been made may get
across the message that this is no time for clowning. In a
pinch, the chairman may have to say, "Let's get serious."
The worst thing he can do is grin and bear it if he does not
want the meeting to deteriorate into a prolonged giggling
match.
Though his patience may be ever so sorely tried, the chairman
must be scrupulously polite to keep the discussion moving
forward in a businesslike fashion. If the object is to come
to a joint decision, he must also be scrupulously objective,
even though he might hold firm personal views.
In cases where the chairman outranks the participants, there
may be a reluctance to put views forward in case they might
clash with what the boss is thinking. To eliminate such fence-sitting,
the chairman should make his own thinking known at the outset:
"I am inclined to favour this course of action, but I can
be persuaded to change my mind."
The chairman must also exercise objectivity in dealing with
any disputes that might break out among the participants.
He must look for opportunities to intervene with an even-handed
summing-up of the opposing opinions to determine if any common
ground exists.
Summaries urge on the pace and help
to clear up confusion
Personal disputes among members bring up another instance
when one might fall back on the established rules of order.
The age-old parliamentary practice of having members filter
their remarks through the speaker was designed with just such
acrimony in mind. If an argument threatens to fly out of control,
the chairman is well-advised to call for order and suggest
that the antagonists address the chair and not each other.
If that seems overly punctilious in the circumstances, they
can at least be told to direct their remarks to the entire
group.
It is a rare discussion that does not contain a fair amount
of repetition. The chairman is usually painfully aware of
the point at which progress ceases and the wheels start spinning
in vain. One proven technique for preventing the same thing
being said over and over is to summarize the meaning of the
verbiage: "As I understand it, what you are saying is this..."
In any case, it always pays to punctuate the dialogue with
carefully-worded summaries. These urge on the pace and help
to eliminate ambiguities by having the participants amend
the chairman's interpretation of what they said. If there
is one function that stands above the rest in the chairman's
terms of reference, it is to facilitate a common understanding
of the issues among those around the table. This calls for
highly attentive listening to pick up exactly and fully what
is being said.
If any doubt exists about the meaning of what has been expressed,
the chairman must question the speaker until all confusion
has been eliminated. It is also part of the chairman's task
to rekindle interest in the proceedings when the pace slows,
so that salient points are not passed over as people become
restless. But he should not be too quick to interrupt silences.
Some pauses are necessary to give people time to think.
The responsibility for a good meeting
rests with the group
All the good work done at a meeting can amount to nothing
if the actions decided upon are not subsequently taken. Tasks
should be divided up and assigned before the meeting is adjourned.
To guarantee that these things are actually done, deadlines
should be set for the completion of each assignment. No one
should be allowed to leave the room without a full understanding
of the task he or she is expected to carry out.
Up to this point we have concentrated on the role of the
chairman of a meeting, if only because it is a role which
most people in management and supervisory positions may be
called upon to fill at one time or another. But no matter
how conscientious and alert a chairman may be, the responsibility
for the success or otherwise of the meeting rests equally
with everyone in the group.
Much of what is expected of participants in meetings as
part of their terms of employment has already been stated
in passing: that they be on time, that they come prepared,
that they pay close attention to the proceedings, that they
create no distractions, that they keep their remarks to the
point, and that they abstain from personal arguments. Participants
must not skip ahead of the order of business or take up more
than their share of the meeting's time.
In the past few years electronic communications aids and
computers have come to the business meeting, making it possible
to confer at long distance, to display vivid charts and graphs,
and to call up information at a moment's notice. These technological
marvels have been introduced to further productivity, which
basically means doing more work in less time.
Business leaders in western countries still worry, however,
that productivity is not moving forward as much or as quickly
as it should be. The drive for greater efficiency in business
seems to have slowed down from its former pace.
From the time of the Industrial Revolution on, productivity
has been increased mainly through stepping up the output per
hour of machines and equipment rather than the direct efforts
of human beings. But given the present highly developed state
of electronics, the room for advances in productivity through
technological means may be growing scarce. It could therefore
be that the next leap forward in productivity will come through
the more effective management and organization of purely human
activities. The meeting is an obvious starting-point for any
campaign to put the time spent on the human side of business
to better use.
Before that can be done, however, there are psychological
blocks to be hurdled. The most formidable of these is the
common attitude that meetings are at best a necessary evil
and at worst a waste of time. This comes under the heading
of self-confirming thinking; if people go into meeting rooms
with the expectation that little will be accomplished, that
is exactly what is likely to happen. On the other hand, if
the meeting is seen as a medium for applying human brain power
and imagination to their best effect, the way is open to higher
productivity.
Published by RBC Financial Group. All editions from the RBC
Letter collection are available on our web site at www.rbc.com/responsibility/letter.
Our e-mail address is: rbcletter@rbc.com.
Publié aussi en francais.
[ Return to RBC Letter
home page ]
|
