One of my favorite books of all time is “Death by Meeting,” by Patrick Lencioni. It’s not just a perfect title–it’s a good book that helped me understand why so many people hate staff meetings (but continue to do staff meetings!).
One of the biggest insights from the book is the idea of “contextual structure.” That is, how you structure, run, and prepare for a meeting depends on its context–it depends on what work is being done at the meeting, or what problem the meeting was designed to solve.
If this week’s tactical decisions need to be made, you don’t necessarily need to go around the room and have everyone talk about all the projects they’ve been working on over the last six months. Some of those projects, while relevant to the individual, may not have any tactical issues that need the group to solve together, particularly this week. Or maybe, as Lencioni suggests, you can do a “lightning round” first to see if there are any issues that need addressing. Either way, these meetings will probably be brief and to the point.
But if you have a thorny problem that has strategic implications, you might need to set aside two hours, and you probably need at least one person (if not several) to do a bunch of homework and share information electronically before the meeting. The meeting itself might have extended periods of very loosely structured discussion simply because that’s what is needed to solve the problem.
I find, however, that in the office, what we do within our work teams is simply “schedule meetings,” as if all meetings were created equal. In this economy (and maybe in AMCs in general), time is a precious commodity, so if people feel their time is being wasted, it’s a big deal. I think that requires us to be clearer in how we design and schedule “meetings.” Everyone on the team needs to have a better sense of when they will be quick and tactical and when they might be deep and strategic.
