Why Would Anyone Hold a Bad Meeting?

Pssst, want a stock tip that will make you rich?

Okay, here it is: phone a public corporation and ask to speak with the CEO.

If someone tells you that the CEO expects to be busy in meetings for the next six hundred years, call your broker and sell the stock short.

Why? Any company unable to manage an activity that should last an hour is on its way down the financial tubes.

Surveys show that companies waste an average of 20% of their payroll on bad meetings. And that抯 just the beginning of the problem. Meetings keep people away from the tasks they were hired to perform -- tasks that make money for the company and keep the business ahead of the competition.

In fact, if people waste time in meetings, you can conclude that they are doing the wrong thing while they are in a meeting.

Although it抯 true that senior executives spend much of their time in meetings, you can bet that a business is in trouble if their meetings are out of control.

Top executives should use meetings to develop, review, and revise strategy. If they spend their time just talking about stuff, then they are goofing off on the job.

Since bad meetings are so wasteful, you may wonder why anyone tolerates them. Unfortunately, many business leaders think that their meetings are just fine. They even believe that they抮e experts at holding effective meetings.

For example, when I phone companies to ask if they would be interested in improving their meetings, I sometimes encounter an assistant who assures me that the executives believe that they hold wonderful meetings. Then the assistant snickers, coughs softly, and regains enough composure to state that they don抰 need my services. At this point the assistant sounds like someone on a sinking ship who is throwing a life jacket into the water.

And that must make you wonder: why would any intelligent person hold a meeting that wastes everyone抯 time and produces nothing.

There are easy answers such as 1) they don抰 know that their meetings could be effective, 2) they don抰 know what an effective meeting is like, or 3) they don抰 know how to hold an effective meeting.

But what about the rest of them? That is, what about all of the executives who know how to plan and organize and run an effective business, but still hold bad meetings?

Let抯 dig deeper. These executives actually want to hold bad meetings because they prove to be useful. Here抯 how.

1) They provide refuge.
Bad meetings provide a sophisticated form of executive busyness. Some people find this useful because it keeps them from having to work on difficult tasks such as planning, coaching, learning, and communicating. Compared to these difficult tasks, sitting in a conference room is easy. In fact, it is so easy that a six-year old could do it, assuming you could convince the child to stay inside for such a pointless activity.

Better: An effective meeting is business activity where people work together.

2) They avoid responsibility.
Bad meetings never end with decisions, which means that no one ends up being held responsible for doing anything. Some people find this useful because responsibility implies accountability and accountability requires results. Thus, without responsibility there is no failure and everyone appears to perform well. This masks poor performance so that everyone continues to receive raises and promotions, even when they accomplish nothing because (you guessed it) they spent all of their time sitting in meetings.

Better: Effective meetings produce decisions that someone is responsible for implementing.

3) They provide excitement.
Bad meetings feature all of the elements of a good drama, such as conflict, tension, and pain. For example, the participants deliver self-aggrandizing reports, denigrate their colleagues, and engage in politics. Some really terrible meetings play out like pathetic battlegrounds with verbal gladiators battling for favors while the boss watches.

Better: Effective meetings occur in a safe environment of respect.

4) They serve food.
Bad meetings become an enviable executive perk when they provide snacks, coffee, and (sometimes) meals. The attendees then use eating to offset the boredom of having to hear meaningless discussions. It also saves them the expense of having to buy food.

Better: Meals should be a separate activity used to build relationships and (sometimes) rest.

5) They entertain.
Bad meetings resemble a party. People tell stories, trade jokes, and argue over trivia. Some meetings feature comedy performances by the office fool. Others feature humorous belittlements by the office bully. And if neither of these occurs, the absolutely unbelievable discussions amaze and entertain everyone.

Better: Effective meetings use process tools to make methodical progress toward results.

All of this shows why the type of meetings held in a company should be of major concern when making investment decisions. If the executives need to learn how, that can be fixed by scheduling a workshop. Then you might consider investing in the company, after they complete the workshop. If, however, the executives hold bad meetings to avoid fundamental leadership responsibilities, you should seek other investments.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Why Would Anyone Do That in My Meeting?

Imagine that you open a meeting by saying, "We need to talk about the budget."

And someone says, "I named my dog Budget because he's too big."

After the laughter subsides, you wonder why anyone would make such a silly remark in your meeting.

And this leads to a larger question: Why would anyone misbehave in a meeting?

Everyone knows that misbehavior can ruin a meeting. It wastes everyone's time and squanders the opportunity to produce useful results.

Here are some possibilities.

1) They're uninformed

Many people do not know how to plan, conduct, or participate in a meeting. They think that gathering people in a conference room represents holding a meeting. They believe that planning is unnecessary because they expect everyone to arrive with a common agenda. They think that hosting a discussion actually leads to useful results. These well-meaning attempts at holding a meeting are so counterproductive that they can appear to be misbehavior. In addition, a bad meeting irritates others, causing them to retaliate with misbehavior.

Better: Show people how to plan and conduct meetings. Teach them how to use process tools that help people make methodical progress toward results. Schedule a workshop that shows people how to plan and lead meetings.

2) They're bored

Many meetings occur with a few people talking while the rest watch. When this happens, the quiet participants entertain themselves by daydreaming, starting side conversations, or working on other tasks (such as preparing lists of things to do once the meeting finally ends). People with extensive experience in bad meetings have learned how to feign credible interest while being mentally absent.

Better: Plan activities that involve everyone. Avoid relying on discussion for your meeting because it allows the more vocal attendees to dominate.

3) They're mad

People can be mad for many reasons, such as they feel trapped in an unplanned meeting or they disagree with the results being obtained. They could also feel mad if others are preventing them from participating.

People know that a meeting without an agenda will waste their time, and they resent this. For example, a man once told me that he and his friends would "sandbag" any meeting that was called without an agenda. They made inappropriate comments, introduced distracting considerations, and asked pointless questions. Of course, they acted with such professional sincerity that it seemed that they were being productive instead of disruptive.

Better: Always prepare an agenda. Always contact key participants before the meeting to explain their role and to check if they are prepared for the meeting.

4) They disagree

Meetings are an excellent activity to resolve disagreements. However, if people disagree with the issue, the process, or the results AND are unable to exert influence, they will rebel. This rebellion will appear as misbehavior in the meeting or (worse) sabotage after the meeting.

Better: Use process tools in the meeting that involve all of the participants. Always contact key participants before holding a meeting on a controversial issue. Use these conversations to listen to their views, explain the goals for the meeting, and promote your intent for a fair resolution. Make sure that you seek a "Both/And" result instead of an "Either/Or" result so that everyone gets what they need.

5) They misunderstand

Sometimes people misunderstand expectations. For example, an executive was surprised by the negative comments, ridicule, and hostility that occurred during his first staff meeting with a new group. After some investigation, he learned that his predecessor openly criticized and ridiculed people. Thus, this was the behavior that the staff had learned to emulate. The executive fixed this by a) stating new expectations, b) coaching key offenders, and c) setting an example of respectful conduct.

Better: Cultural management is a primary leadership responsibility. Demonstrate the type of behavior that you want for productive meetings and provide private corrective feedback to those who misbehave.

An effective meeting is a team activity conducted by a fair process that involves everyone. People respect this approach and will make positive contributions because they know that such a meeting represents a good use of their time.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.