Archive for the ‘Management’ Category

Over-communicating: The Art of Saying Things and Then Saying Them Again

February 9, 2010

Yes, the title of this post is redundant, but this is my leadership lesson of the week: over-communicating. I learned this one eons ago, and it has been passed down by probably every guru that has ever guru’d. Tell them what you’re going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you told them.

But when I get neck deep in the work, I forget it. I send the emails out, or we have the Board meeting, or I have the conversation, and then it’s out of my head. I have checked that box. I did my job communicating. I forget that in a week or two I need to send the same message out. I forget that my staff will perform better when I share more information than I think is necessary.

It is particularly important when an association has a decentralized committee structure. A lot happens at the Board level that is assumed to have been communicated down to the Committees. And it was, it just wasn’t communicated enough. We need to remind our leaders (both staff and volunteer) that when you get to the top positions, the decision-making responsibilities are often dwarfed by the communication responsibilities.

Then we should tell them that again.

Posted in Boards, Leadership, Management | Leave a Comment »

Scheduling Meetings

October 21, 2009

0787968056.01.TZZZZZZZOne 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.

Posted in Management | Leave a Comment »