|
During my first visit with virtually every client they'll make the following statement: "I don't know what you've seen in other places, but we have too many meetings here."
Most people I know just love to hate meetings. And they give plenty of good reasons:
"I never seem to put in two hours of straight work without having to go to a meeting."
"It's always a re-run of the last meeting's discussion, and we leave without making any progress."
"I just can't listen to so-and-so go on about this-and-that again!"
"There are 10 people in a typical meeting, but only two ever talk. And it's always the same two."
So much so, that when people look to me to help implement Agile, they also hope that "I'll do something about those meetings." They like hearing that Agile mandates only three meetings, each having a clear process and time-box. Other meetings would be called only for specific issues.
Let me get one thing straight: Meetings are not evil. Most meetings are just a form of conversation. I'm sure you don't consider informal conversations with your colleagues distasteful. Meetings often have more participants, some are more formal (perhaps with a clearer purpose), and they are often scheduled. But they are still a conversation.
Which leads me to debunk another myth: Meeting time is not necessarily a sunk cost. Remember, the only thing that matters is that your team and organization achieve their objectives. Some meetings further these goals better than individuals working at their desks would, so those meetings are worth having. The setback to your individual "productivity" doesn't matter.
Meetings get evil when any of the following applies:
- They have no stated purpose. The Agile meetings, for instance, have very explicit purposes. Many weekly functional team meetings don't seem to.
- They violate their stated purpose. You get this when a standup meeting turns into a design discussion or a two-person exchange, and when a retrospective turns into chitchat or a complaint-fest.
- They have no clear agenda. I don't mean an exhaustive list of topics with a number of minutes next to them. An agenda is simply a list of questions that the participants want to answer by having the meeting. (You can read more about this perspective in Jean Tabaka's book, "Collaboration Explained".)
- They end with no actionable conclusion.
- They are political. For instance, anytime a meeting participant shows off, dominates, or furthers a personal agenda.
- Attendees spend more than two minutes on anything not related to the purpose and agenda: Waiting for latecomers, listening to latecomers' excuses, fudging with technology, and scheduling the meetings.
In some company cultures, being invited to a meeting is an indicator of stature. My sense is that such cultures don't end up in the "high performance" category, but I don't have data to back this up.
Would you want to have fewer meetings? If at all possible, see if you can apply this rule to your meetings:
"If you're not contribuing or learning in this meeting, feel free not to attend it."
Post this notice on the doors to meeting rooms. Affix it to meeting invitations so recipients can self-select. I think it's very liberating; I wonder what you'll discover — let me know.
Copyright © 2010, 3P Vantage, Inc. All rights reserved.
|