Inside Influence Report
September 09, 2010
How to Have More Productive Meetings
By Steve Martin, CMCT
If there’s any truth in the saying, “meetings are where minutes are taken and hours are wasted” then there is a fair chance that you have come away from a few meetings asking yourself if anything productive had been accomplished.
It was over 25 years ago that psychologists William Titus and Garold Stasser published their work on how people communicate in groups in the pursuit of making a decision. And even though a quarter of a century has since passed, when it comes to influencing successful meeting outcomes, could their findings still be as relevant today?
In their studies Titus and Stasser found that a significant amount of time in meetings was spent listening to people telling each other what everyone else already knew. Worryingly, their studies went on to find that the individuals in meetings who actually possessed genuinely new information, that only they knew about, often failed to alert the rest of the group to this new information. As a result, the decisions made were, at best OK and at worst, pretty poor. Other studies have often shown that meetings that have been arranged with the clear purpose of gaining approval for an action will often end without a decision actually being made.
So what influences meetings like this to occur? And perhaps more importantly, what can be done to influence more productive ones?
One possible reason why so much time is spent discussing items that are already well known is the fact that they are already well known. In a sense they provide an element of familiarity. And familiarity can serve to provide safety and comfort. Better to feel comfortable discussing what is known and familiar to many than risk being marginalized by raising items that may be alien to most.
Another reason that might cause these “Groundhog Day” meetings to occur is the fact that people often come with pre-conceived ideas. In effect people turn up having already made up their minds about what should and shouldn’t be done. Unfortunately, the very information they have used to base their decisions on is probably quite similar, if not the same as information available to everyone else. The result being that the same things come up time and time again.
Before turning our attention to things that can be done to foster better communication and enhance the productiveness of our meetings, it may be useful to spend a few moments reflecting on how other professionals approach meetings. For a case in point let’s think about doctors.
Like all healthcare professionals, doctors are trained in the importance of sharing information; and, as a result, how to promote optimal decisions. This makes good sense. And, for their patients, it is also good news. Knowing that everyone involved in their care has a clear understanding of their situation and circumstances can do much to reduce anxiety and raise confidence levels. But it turns out that even those professionally trained to share information and pool their respective knowledge can sometimes fall short.
Take by way of an example a study where a number of doctors were shown videos of two specific medical cases (Larson et al, 1998). The doctors in the study were split into small groups to see the videos. But unbeknown to them, each group watched a slightly different video. Additionally, some doctors were provided with individual information about each of the cases. As a result all the doctors received some relevant information about the two patient scenarios but no one doctor received all the relevant information.
After watching the videos the doctors were asked to discuss the two cases with one of the other groups and come to a consensus about both the diagnosis and the required treatments. Cleverly the researchers made sure that the most accurate diagnosis and treatment decisions could only be made if all the doctors contributed their respective knowledge to the group. What they found though, was that sharing and pooling of information rarely happened to the extent that the most accurate diagnosis could be made. As a result less than optimal decision making occurred leading to poorer decisions. There are two features of this study that are of particular concern. The first concern is quite clearly for the patient. The second concern is the fact that even though doctors are routinely trained to share and pool information often they do not.
So what can be done to ensure that information is offered freely and communicated effectively so that the meetings you host are as productive as they can be. Here are 3 ideas.
[1] Ask for submissions before the meeting.
Perhaps one of the simplest and most effective things is for the meeting sponsor to ask those attending to submit information before the meeting. As a result contributions are less likely to be influenced by those of others. This approach can be especially effective for meetings where a desired output is new ideas. Asking for contributions in advance very often increases the number of voices that are heard leading to a potentially greater number of ideas that are generated.
The same approach can be applied in training sessions. Rather than immediately asking groups to consider ways to tackle a challenge or problem, encouraging a few moments of quiet individual reflection before sharing responses can be very useful.
[2] Ensure the leader speaks last.
Often the one person who fails to notice their influence over the group is the leader themselves. As a result a leader who contributes information first will often find group members following their line. They may use different words and phrases but in essence they’re just repeating the same thing. One way to avoid this potentially unhelpful influence is to ensure that the leader solicits the opinions and inputs of others before publicly declaring their own. Another way is to ensure that meeting attendees are aware of each other’s expertise. Doing so means that everyone knows both what everyone else knows and, even more importantly, what they don’t.
[3] Recognize the value of the humble checklist.
One way that doctors now routinely ensure that they avoid making less than optimal decisions and collectively take the right course of action is to make use of a simple checklist (Gawande, 2009). The checklist contains some surprisingly obvious but disastrous if missed items. Is this the right patient? Do I have their medical records? Are they allergic to anything? Do I know their blood group?
Much like a pilot will employ a checklist as part of their pre-flight activities there is much to be said for meeting organizers considering the items that should be on their pre-meeting checklist. Are the right people in attendance? Is the balance of expertise correct? Is someone coming that will dissent in a positive way? (this is a good thing by the way).
Maybe these ideas could help to ensure that your meetings are the most meaningful and productive that they can be.
Sources:
Titus, W. & Stasser, G. (1985) Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48( 6): 1467-1478.
So what influences meetings like this to occur? And perhaps more importantly, what can be done to influence more productive ones?
One possible reason why so much time is spent discussing items that are already well known is the fact that they are already well known. In a sense they provide an element of familiarity. And familiarity can serve to provide safety and comfort. Better to feel comfortable discussing what is known and familiar to many than risk being marginalized by raising items that may be alien to most.
Another reason that might cause these “Groundhog Day” meetings to occur is the fact that people often come with pre-conceived ideas. In effect people turn up having already made up their minds about what should and shouldn’t be done. Unfortunately, the very information they have used to base their decisions on is probably quite similar, if not the same as information available to everyone else. The result being that the same things come up time and time again.
Before turning our attention to things that can be done to foster better communication and enhance the productiveness of our meetings, it may be useful to spend a few moments reflecting on how other professionals approach meetings. For a case in point let’s think about doctors.
Like all healthcare professionals, doctors are trained in the importance of sharing information; and, as a result, how to promote optimal decisions. This makes good sense. And, for their patients, it is also good news. Knowing that everyone involved in their care has a clear understanding of their situation and circumstances can do much to reduce anxiety and raise confidence levels. But it turns out that even those professionally trained to share information and pool their respective knowledge can sometimes fall short.
Take by way of an example a study where a number of doctors were shown videos of two specific medical cases (Larson et al, 1998). The doctors in the study were split into small groups to see the videos. But unbeknown to them, each group watched a slightly different video. Additionally, some doctors were provided with individual information about each of the cases. As a result all the doctors received some relevant information about the two patient scenarios but no one doctor received all the relevant information.
After watching the videos the doctors were asked to discuss the two cases with one of the other groups and come to a consensus about both the diagnosis and the required treatments. Cleverly the researchers made sure that the most accurate diagnosis and treatment decisions could only be made if all the doctors contributed their respective knowledge to the group. What they found though, was that sharing and pooling of information rarely happened to the extent that the most accurate diagnosis could be made. As a result less than optimal decision making occurred leading to poorer decisions. There are two features of this study that are of particular concern. The first concern is quite clearly for the patient. The second concern is the fact that even though doctors are routinely trained to share and pool information often they do not.
So what can be done to ensure that information is offered freely and communicated effectively so that the meetings you host are as productive as they can be. Here are 3 ideas.
[1] Ask for submissions before the meeting.
Perhaps one of the simplest and most effective things is for the meeting sponsor to ask those attending to submit information before the meeting. As a result contributions are less likely to be influenced by those of others. This approach can be especially effective for meetings where a desired output is new ideas. Asking for contributions in advance very often increases the number of voices that are heard leading to a potentially greater number of ideas that are generated.
The same approach can be applied in training sessions. Rather than immediately asking groups to consider ways to tackle a challenge or problem, encouraging a few moments of quiet individual reflection before sharing responses can be very useful.
[2] Ensure the leader speaks last.
Often the one person who fails to notice their influence over the group is the leader themselves. As a result a leader who contributes information first will often find group members following their line. They may use different words and phrases but in essence they’re just repeating the same thing. One way to avoid this potentially unhelpful influence is to ensure that the leader solicits the opinions and inputs of others before publicly declaring their own. Another way is to ensure that meeting attendees are aware of each other’s expertise. Doing so means that everyone knows both what everyone else knows and, even more importantly, what they don’t.
[3] Recognize the value of the humble checklist.
One way that doctors now routinely ensure that they avoid making less than optimal decisions and collectively take the right course of action is to make use of a simple checklist (Gawande, 2009). The checklist contains some surprisingly obvious but disastrous if missed items. Is this the right patient? Do I have their medical records? Are they allergic to anything? Do I know their blood group?
Much like a pilot will employ a checklist as part of their pre-flight activities there is much to be said for meeting organizers considering the items that should be on their pre-meeting checklist. Are the right people in attendance? Is the balance of expertise correct? Is someone coming that will dissent in a positive way? (this is a good thing by the way).
Maybe these ideas could help to ensure that your meetings are the most meaningful and productive that they can be.
Sources:
Titus, W. & Stasser, G. (1985) Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48( 6): 1467-1478.
Larson, J,R., Christensen, C., Franz, T.M., Abbott, A.S. (1998). Diagnosing groups: the pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1):93-108
Gwande,A. (2009) The Checklist Manifesto – How to get things right. Metropolitan Books, New York.
Gwande,A. (2009) The Checklist Manifesto – How to get things right. Metropolitan Books, New York.
********************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment