What sort of meeting do you need?

Meetings are about learning

The first of these two meetings is the type that is commonly portrayed in promotions of web-based meetings – where the ‘play’ is clear and the ‘actors’ are aligned in their delivery of it. See the lower left quadrant of the diagram on the right. We call these Tag Meetings because they are about a simple handover of information, and to reflect the idea of hanging those Tags on the hooks in a shared, valid, framework of understanding. You can probably reflect on some of your own meetings that have gone this way – they are usually simple, brief, to the point, and a delight to be part of.

But effective Tag Meetings are dependent on the ‘play being clear’ and the ‘actors aligned’, and the question has to be asked: ‘How did they become that way?’ Added to which, even though the play may be ‘clear’ to begin with, time and unexpected developments gradually erode the consensus and alignment that has been achieved, and undermine the assumptions that lie behind the chosen direction. At these points, a simple presentation and exchange of views is often insufficient to bring the insight and shared commitment that is necessary to make efficient progress, and a greater level of engagement, creativity and process becomes necessary to reconcile the emerging divisions.

This then brings us on to the second type of meeting. We call these Tackle Meetings because people have to wrestle with their own understanding of the situation, and with other people’s, to reach a common framework which has the necessary commitment and support to ensure progress going forward. You probably have some experience of these meetings as well – they either took a degree of pain and trouble to reach a conclusion, or they ended with a series of actions but no real confidence in the commitment to deliver those actions, or sometimes both. Simple presentations and discussions have their place in these meetings but are rarely sufficient to bring about the ‘learning by accommodation’ that is needed. More sophisticated tools are advised in order to inspire the creative insight, and handle the variety of participation required for people to change their models and bring their commitment behind a common way forward. Frustration arises when we try to bring about the ‘learning by accommodation’ necessary in these meetings, armed only with tools that are suited to ‘learning by assimilation’ – but sadly this is often the case.

Understanding Tag Meetings

But the question needs to be asked, do Tag Meetings require a traditional meeting at all, or are there other mechanisms that will work more effectively and economically? For instance, if we look at the diagram on the right, could we do more through forums, or share points etc., or by exploring other elements of synchronous or asynchronous interaction.

Understanding Tackle Meetings

However, the mechanisms required to draw people back into clarity and alignment depend in large part on which quadrant the team has drifted into; on whether developments have muddied the play, or divided the actors, or both. And the type of Tackle Meeting managers use can fall into three camps, as shown in the diagram on the right, and in the explanations below:

• Play unclear/actors misaligned – It is this situation which managers are most likely to encounter at the start of a project or piece of work. Here the Tackle Meeting tends to be formative in nature, enabling people to work on the problem in a structured way, while gaining insights into their own responsibilities and relationships within that. It is about breaking down the problem and moving through its definition and planned resolution step by step, and at each step consciously considering how the roles and relationships of the team are unfolding. The key to success here is to ensure that the problem or intention is first defined at a level which engages with a shared goal for the group (even at the highest level – the success of the organisation – if no shared goal can be found at more detailed levels). It is then broken down objectively through tangible evidence and avoiding divisive opinion and blame, until practical steps become clear, and people are appointed to them. It is very much about getting the problem to work on the people while the people work on the problem.
• Play unclear/actors aligned – This situation occurs when either a well-established team is given a new problem, or where the problem itself shifts. It is very common in projects which move through stages of resolution, and where the issues need to be tackled at an increasingly detailed level – for instance when they move from identifying a solution to planning its implementation. Key to making progress in this quadrant is opening up the problem through insight and creativity, to ensure that it embraces all of the possibilities, before focusing back down on a way forward.
• Play clear/actors misaligned – Sadly, the most common cause of drifting into this quadrant is organisational politics; where vested interests shift or seek to exploit emerging advantages. It is often referred to as ‘hidden agendas’, and needs to be addressed early and firmly to avoid generating waste and inefficiency. Key to progress in this quadrant is returning to the problem which all the actors have been assembled to tackle, and then working through the steps to identify the beginnings of disagreement. This enables the group to begin asking how they need to widen their understanding of the problem in order to provide a valid platform for including the hidden agenda. Bringing the agenda into the light in this way, and giving it validity, actually refines away the subversive baggage that may have become attached to it and, in doing so, has made it a common issue for the whole team.

Understanding Compound Meetings

• Failing to be explicit within the meeting about exactly what is going to happen and why, and failing to select the most appropriate and efficient approach for the different elements.
• Throwing in other items simply because the group is ‘having a meeting’, instead of evaluating each item on its merits, and excluding those that can either be done in better ways or which may detract from what it actually trying to be achieved in the meeting.