The Quickest Meeting Fix

Once upon a time I went to a monthly meeting with my boss and her peers where we mostly sat around and ate cookies. The cookies were homemade and rather good, but they could not compensate for the meeting, which was the most painful I’ve ever endured. Long silences, meandering conversations, no one in charge, one person or another trying – and failing – to get us back on topic. In this way, 90 minutes would

s l o w l y pass. It was like practicing for hell. Each month after the meeting, I’d beg my boss to fire me so I wouldn’t have to go back. Each month she’d say: “If I have to go, you have to go.”

So I started suggesting the usual things: outcomes, an agenda, meeting processes, facilitation. “None of those work,” was her reply. In this way, six excruciating months c r e p t by. In a final attempt to save my sanity, I asked if I couldn’t please just conduct a meeting evaluation. “Five minutes, a quick plus-delta at the very end. That’s it – I promise.” Exasperated, she agreed.

The delta (or, what we should change for next time) column ran down hal the sheet of chartpad paper, then looped back around until it filled most of the sheet of chartpad paper. On it were things like: Have an agenda, have timeframes, have a facilitator, have a purpose, more structure, shorter meeting, what are we doing here, anyway? In the plus column was a single word: Cookies.

I said “Let’s decide what to do about this list of deltas.” My boss shot me a look which I chose to interpret as supportive. In the end, I agreed to put together an agenda and facilitate the next meeting. We kept the cookies.

Two much shorter meetings later, the team agreed to disband, as they had no actual work to do.

What if it’s this simple? What if the meeting you dread could be improved with this simple technique? I think it can. I’ve never seen this fail to make a meeting better.

Here are the keys to making it a success:

List the pluses first. Linger here. Divide a chartpad into two columns and list the pluses on one side of the chartpad so everyone can see the list. The group will want to rush to fixing what’s broken, missing the chance to encourage themselves with what they’re doing well. Over time, they come to feel beat up on, and their enthusiasm wanes.

Agree to continue doing every plus you can. Brava – it’s working! Acknowledge it and keep doing what works. This is tremendously encouraging for your team.

Solve for each and every delta on the list Every. Single. One. After you finish listing them down the other side of the chartpadk decide what to do about each one, right on the spot. Then, make the change and let everybody know what you did. This means that you bring the list to the next meeting (no, don’t rewrite it or type it up) and say “Here’s what we’re doing differently as result of your feedback.”

Remember: This is not a consensus activity. It’s fine to hear “too much activity” right after you’ve written down “not enough activity.” Let the group members sit with their own differences. They’ll come up with a great solution when you start solving for the deltas.

I’d love to hear about how this works for you, or what you do that works better.

Five things I must tell you before I go

I’m taking up the challenge from Etienne over at The Happy Employee. What are the five things I’d tell the managers I work with if I were about to die?

1. Get more sleep. You’ve read the studies. You’ve seen the effects in others. Get more rest. We will love you for it.

2. Get more help, especially when you’re overwhelmed. Sure it may not be done just the way you’d do it, but it will be done. (This is advice I should take myself. And I will, as soon as I get up from my nap.)

3. Have more fun. That’s where all the innovation is hiding – in workgroups where they are having fun. Also, it’s very difficult to be anxious when you’re laughing.

4. Make appreciation a habit. Ask each person on your staff to coffee or lunch and get them to tell you the story of how they accomplished something they are proud of.

5. Leave room for other’s to add their thoughts. Do some things at the 80% level so others feel comfortable joining in.

Need a quick break? Imagine space.

Some friends and I were watching the wildcam at Pete’s Pond in the Mashatu Game Reserve the other evening, not really expecting to see any wildlife as it was high noon in Botswana, which is not a time the animals come to the pond to drink. So, we were especially delighted when camera zoomed in on a lone jackal. This jackal was standing at the water’s edge trembling from head to tail and looking everywhere at once. Occasionally he’d thrust his muzzle into the water then jerk it back and begin looking around again, still trembling like a junkie in detox. Or like Wiley E. Coyote after being electrocuted by Bugs Bunny, if you prefer.

It looked painful.

We started looking for the predator that had the jackal so terrified, but could see nothing. Appearing to read our minds, the camera operator zoomed out, then panned left and right. Nothing.

Our thirsty, trembling jackal was all alone. We sat, staring, for the next 5 minutes, waiting for a denouement. It never came.

I‘ve been that jackal, lost in some repetitive, negative thought, all the while standing in a reality that argues against it. Those thoughts are like having a sore tooth – even though it hurts to keep running my tongue over it, I can’t leave it alone. I’ve gotten much better about it over the years, but I’m always looking to improve my relationship with my brain.

This is why I was so excited to receive and devour The Open-Focus Brain, by Les Fehmi, PhD and Jim Robbins. Without spoiling your reading pleasure, this book summarizes Dr. Fehmi’s decades of research about shifting brain waves from narrow-objective, high-alert beta to relaxed yet alert synchronous alpha. High beta gives us narrow focus and the ability to get things done but comes with a cost: stress, anger, anxiety and muscle tension. Alpha brain waves, especially synchronous alpha (where two or more areas of the brain are vibrating at the same frequency) creates a relaxed, wakeful state that gives rise to effortless, fluid movement, calm spontaneity and an open, light presence. It’s the hallmark of veteran meditators, according to the authors, and leaves the mind functioning better on every level – reasoning, memory, ability to focus.

I tried the first open focus exercise. It directs you to focus your attention both on the object in front of you and on the space between your eyes and around the object. The results were instantaneous. Physically, I felt a sense of ease and softening in my muscles, and I could feel my mind loosening its grip. I hadn’t realized I’d been gripping until I began to let go. It was pure pleasure.

According the authors, our over-reliance on narrow focus attention to perform tasks – the rut we live in – is wearing on the body and brain, but:

“When the mind is asked to imagine or attend to space, there is nothing – no-thing – to grip on to, to objectify and make sense of, no memories of past events or anticipation of future scenarios. The brain is allowed to take a vacation...The imagination and realization of space seems to reset stress-encumbered neural networks and return them to their original effortlessly flexible processing.”

I’ll be practicing this more and getting back to you about the results. I’d love to hear about your experience with it in the comments below.

I wish someone could let that terrified little jackal in Africa know.

Consensus isn’t taking a vote

“We make all our decisions by consensus.” “We’re a consensus-based organization.” I must hear this from a client a week. When I ask about how consensus is reached, I hear some version of: “We give each idea that’s presented and discussed a thumbs-up, thumbs-down or a thumbs-sideways.” A what? ” A thumbs-sideways – it means ‘maybe.’ Then we count the thumbs. Whichever idea has the most thumbs-up wins. The people who didn’t give that idea a thumbs-up agree to live with the decision.”

Sounds like voting to me. Same process, same outcome: An idea is presented, there is discussion, the majority “wins,” and there is a disaffected minority who agrees to “live with” the decision – until the next chance they get to change it. Which means you’ll get to make this decision again…and again…and again. And that’s pretty much the opposite of a decision made by consensus.

So, if voting isn’t consensus, what is? I think of consensus as a series of small agreements that build to a solid decision. Consensus is bounded by realistic parameters which is what gives it its creative spark. It’s not an open discussion; rather it relies on structure for its tremendous freedom and power. Learning and listening is built into each step. Contention is too. By this I do not mean encounter group-style confessional displays, open weeping or chair-throwing. I mean being willing to be influenced by another’s point of view. I mean speaking honestly and openly and knowing the pleasure of having your point of view heard, understood and responded to. The response may be “yes,” ” I see it diferently,” or “oh yeah, and what about…” When flawlessly executed, consensus trumps group dynamics: it’s more compelling than rank, than being detached, winning or staying a victim. It’s tremendously energizing and the decisions do not have to be made again. Over time, the groups that learn this process become increasingly deft in their decision-making and follow-through.

I think this is the chief difference between consensus and voting. In consensus, there is resolution. The decision sticks because the process is transparently fair and inclusive of all points of view. Because of their constructive contention, the group coheres without slipping into groupthink. Their decision is effectively bulletproofed. Enacting that kind of decision is easy. Commitment from the organization comes more easily too.

 

It’s easy to see why organizations want to lay claim to consensus: Who wouldn’t want that level of cohesion and commitment?

Still, not every decision merits the time, attention and thoroughness of consensus. Some decisions are best made by voting, disaffected minority and all. Many decisions are better made by a leader who has been informed by her group’s input or feedback. Knowing which approach best suits your situation is the art of decision-making. And accurately labeling your current process – painful though that may be – is a good place to start.