Just another committee meeting where nothing was accomplished...
June 11, 2007 7:14 PM Subscribe
I've attended work meetings where a committee is formed to solve a problem. The problem is usually open-ended rather than specific. For example, increase employee satisfaction. I'm finding that everyone talks and very little gets decided / accomplished, and so another meeting is scheduled. A huge amount of time is spent going to these meetings.
Is there another way to accomplish things? Is there some new paradigm out there for small group information gathering and decision-making that at least appears to give a nod to group input?
The committee needs to have more concrete terms of reference. Either more specific tasks or at least certain givens need to be laid out (deadline, budget, etc.). Unless the terms of reference tell you when the job is done, you'll get the results you describe.
posted by winston at 7:32 PM on June 11, 2007
posted by winston at 7:32 PM on June 11, 2007
Ideally, here's the process:
Brainstorm general ideas for "increasing employee satisfaction" (first meeting)
Cull ideas for practicality, budget, etc. (first meeting)
List tasks required to put selected ideas into action. (second meeting)
Assign tasks (third meeting)
Set deadlines (third meeting)
Report on progress. (subsequent meetings)
posted by misha at 7:36 PM on June 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
Brainstorm general ideas for "increasing employee satisfaction" (first meeting)
Cull ideas for practicality, budget, etc. (first meeting)
List tasks required to put selected ideas into action. (second meeting)
Assign tasks (third meeting)
Set deadlines (third meeting)
Report on progress. (subsequent meetings)
posted by misha at 7:36 PM on June 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
Oh god, everywhere I've ever worked seems to have this culture of meetings that go nowhere. For hours. Necessitating further meetings. And sometimes even meetings about meetings. It drives me up a wall.
One thing that's helped me in these situations is to suggest upfront (either when planning the meeting, or at the start of the meeting) that it should be a "working meeting" -- that is, that there are actual things that need to be decided/accomplished/etc. during the meeting, not just dicussed. I'll also bring or suggest an agenda that includes actual tasks, rather than topics. (On preview: misha's process framework is great.)
This helps, pretty consistently, to generate at least some productivity. I've found, too, that plenty of people in the loop are relieved (if not eager) to get stuff done themselves, too, rather than just participate in the endless time-suck/talk-shop, and will jump on board with the working meeting concept. (Correspondingly, I've also figured out that some people are in fact genuinely resistant to the idea of productivity -- for various reasons, they are actually reluctant to move forward, make decisions, etc., and would rather just keep talking and talking rather than getting anything done.)
posted by scody at 7:39 PM on June 11, 2007
One thing that's helped me in these situations is to suggest upfront (either when planning the meeting, or at the start of the meeting) that it should be a "working meeting" -- that is, that there are actual things that need to be decided/accomplished/etc. during the meeting, not just dicussed. I'll also bring or suggest an agenda that includes actual tasks, rather than topics. (On preview: misha's process framework is great.)
This helps, pretty consistently, to generate at least some productivity. I've found, too, that plenty of people in the loop are relieved (if not eager) to get stuff done themselves, too, rather than just participate in the endless time-suck/talk-shop, and will jump on board with the working meeting concept. (Correspondingly, I've also figured out that some people are in fact genuinely resistant to the idea of productivity -- for various reasons, they are actually reluctant to move forward, make decisions, etc., and would rather just keep talking and talking rather than getting anything done.)
posted by scody at 7:39 PM on June 11, 2007
Recent meetings of mine... "Action Items", the last 5 or so minutes of the meeting is a rehash of the Action Items, things to be completed before the next meeting.
Another thing that helps is an email list for the specific task group, or even better an IM chatroom for the task group. Someway for the committee to continue work during the time that they are not in meetings.
These two things have totally changed the dynamic of the one committee type meeting that I have to attend. It's no longer a 'once every month' thing but an ongoing process thing.
posted by zengargoyle at 7:56 PM on June 11, 2007
Another thing that helps is an email list for the specific task group, or even better an IM chatroom for the task group. Someway for the committee to continue work during the time that they are not in meetings.
These two things have totally changed the dynamic of the one committee type meeting that I have to attend. It's no longer a 'once every month' thing but an ongoing process thing.
posted by zengargoyle at 7:56 PM on June 11, 2007
Part of the issue is that committees can't really be held responsible for actions, only people can. A good first step is to assign roles to members—set the agenda, take notes, moderate, etc.—and assign tasks at the end of meetings. People often become more invested in seeing results.
Also, it seems unlikely that most a committees tasked with "increasing employee satisfaction" will actually have the power to make whatever changes it decides are necessary. In which case there can be a sense that the only real good the committee will be able to do is in talking about it (never underestimate the power a good vent session can have!). So maybe make the committees more goal-oriented from the beginning: return to the larger group in two months with a presentation about the state of employee satisfaction and a list of potential actions to take.
posted by wemayfreeze at 8:00 PM on June 11, 2007
Also, it seems unlikely that most a committees tasked with "increasing employee satisfaction" will actually have the power to make whatever changes it decides are necessary. In which case there can be a sense that the only real good the committee will be able to do is in talking about it (never underestimate the power a good vent session can have!). So maybe make the committees more goal-oriented from the beginning: return to the larger group in two months with a presentation about the state of employee satisfaction and a list of potential actions to take.
posted by wemayfreeze at 8:00 PM on June 11, 2007
The setup you describe is broken in many ways. First of all, even if it really is the goal of the company to increase employee satisfaction, in any company larger than ~five people, it would take as many other people working full time to uncover how to do this in that particular company with these particular employees. Probably the first thing they’d have to do is find a measurable criteria—how exactly would they know that they’d increased satisfaction.
Second, no company—small or large, profit or non-profit—that I’ve ever worked for or in as a consultant in issues like the one you mention has ever, ever wanted to simply and altruistically increase employee satisfaction. Your team is working toward a lie, or at least a red herring. This is probably the biggest reason nothing gets accomplished quickly with "open ended" issues like these. The company really wants something else. Maybe it wants to decrease employee turnover. Maybe it wants to slow salary increases. Maybe it wants to increase sales. Increasing employee satisfaction could help all of these.
A way to get at the real agenda is to ask ‘why?’ or ‘so that…?’ at least a few times when you run into these "values" committees. The conversation might go something like this:
“We want to increase employee satisfaction.” – Why?
“To increase our rank in a Best Places to Work list.” – Why?
“So that we attract above-average candidates for positions.” –Why?
“So that we can hire people who can do more than the average person.” –Why?
“So that we get more productivity for a less money.”
Or something like that.
Most companies are not honest enough with themselves about these things and don’t trust their employees enough to be honest with them, either. So the (usually) uncomfortable work is uncovering what the corporate agenda really is. Barring that, stay off committees with unmeasurable goals.
posted by cocoagirl at 8:05 PM on June 11, 2007
Second, no company—small or large, profit or non-profit—that I’ve ever worked for or in as a consultant in issues like the one you mention has ever, ever wanted to simply and altruistically increase employee satisfaction. Your team is working toward a lie, or at least a red herring. This is probably the biggest reason nothing gets accomplished quickly with "open ended" issues like these. The company really wants something else. Maybe it wants to decrease employee turnover. Maybe it wants to slow salary increases. Maybe it wants to increase sales. Increasing employee satisfaction could help all of these.
A way to get at the real agenda is to ask ‘why?’ or ‘so that…?’ at least a few times when you run into these "values" committees. The conversation might go something like this:
“We want to increase employee satisfaction.” – Why?
“To increase our rank in a Best Places to Work list.” – Why?
“So that we attract above-average candidates for positions.” –Why?
“So that we can hire people who can do more than the average person.” –Why?
“So that we get more productivity for a less money.”
Or something like that.
Most companies are not honest enough with themselves about these things and don’t trust their employees enough to be honest with them, either. So the (usually) uncomfortable work is uncovering what the corporate agenda really is. Barring that, stay off committees with unmeasurable goals.
posted by cocoagirl at 8:05 PM on June 11, 2007
Define the goal, define how to measure success, and set a deadline. Establish the penalty for missing the deadline. If the penalty is severe enough, it will get done.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 8:05 PM on June 11, 2007
posted by JohnnyGunn at 8:05 PM on June 11, 2007
Basically what the others said already. Set the topic and a rough agenda beforehand. It is hard to restrict "brain storming" sessions timewise, but you can do it if everyone knows what is going to be discussed beforehand and they are prepared.
I find it very helpful to assign a rapporteur, a person that takes notes and by the end of the discussion recapitulates. His/her report will be the basis for subsequent meetings. I hate it when everyone starts discussing what has already been discussed before, often using the same arguments word by word!
Furthermore, depending on the size of the meeting, breaking up the group into smaller groups with assigned tasks, agendas and rapporteurs, expedites the process and keeps people interested, since they presumably participate in the group they prefer. Finally, they all meet together for the happy ending.
posted by carmina at 8:05 PM on June 11, 2007
I find it very helpful to assign a rapporteur, a person that takes notes and by the end of the discussion recapitulates. His/her report will be the basis for subsequent meetings. I hate it when everyone starts discussing what has already been discussed before, often using the same arguments word by word!
Furthermore, depending on the size of the meeting, breaking up the group into smaller groups with assigned tasks, agendas and rapporteurs, expedites the process and keeps people interested, since they presumably participate in the group they prefer. Finally, they all meet together for the happy ending.
posted by carmina at 8:05 PM on June 11, 2007
Nthing much of the above: this kind of meeting is a sop which provides a "point with pride" check-box for a senior executive, but is intentionally worthless. The kind of brief you want has measurable, achievable goals, like "reduce employee turnover 20% by Q3 2007". With such a brief you would have something worthwhile. As it is, the best course for you personally is to get someone else to be the stuckee for that kind of meeting.
posted by jet_silver at 8:31 PM on June 11, 2007
posted by jet_silver at 8:31 PM on June 11, 2007
Ok, there's two keys to actually getting something out of these meetings. First, appoint a meeting facilitator and a timekeeper. Separate people. Both roles can rotate, however, the quality of your meetings depend greatly on your facilitator... they need to have some tricks in their bag to deal with blowhards.
(Aside: My favorite trick is to appoint a blowhard as the timekeeper or notekeeper... or some other job that keeps them busy most of the time, but involved.)
The second thing is going to be to set some specific goals during the first meeting. That will turn into brainstorming, and then on down the chain to action items and measuring results. If you were given a statement, like "Improve Employee Morale" complete it by describing how you're going to measure it... "as measured by a survey", or "According to exit interviews conducted in the period of..." ... or "as measured by employee retention rate increases."
Why do that during the first meeting? People like to hear themselves talk. If you leave it as open-ended as management wants, you'll spend all day brainstorming.
posted by SpecialK at 8:57 PM on June 11, 2007
(Aside: My favorite trick is to appoint a blowhard as the timekeeper or notekeeper... or some other job that keeps them busy most of the time, but involved.)
The second thing is going to be to set some specific goals during the first meeting. That will turn into brainstorming, and then on down the chain to action items and measuring results. If you were given a statement, like "Improve Employee Morale" complete it by describing how you're going to measure it... "as measured by a survey", or "According to exit interviews conducted in the period of..." ... or "as measured by employee retention rate increases."
Why do that during the first meeting? People like to hear themselves talk. If you leave it as open-ended as management wants, you'll spend all day brainstorming.
posted by SpecialK at 8:57 PM on June 11, 2007
If you really want to get rid of meetings, and if you can. Simply pick someone to be put in charge of solving whatever open-ended problem there is. For example, say you have "employee satisfaction" as a problem. Pick someone and make them come up with a solution, and then put them in charge of implementing it. That way, no meetings.
posted by delmoi at 8:59 PM on June 11, 2007
posted by delmoi at 8:59 PM on June 11, 2007
Do it all with email.
Still nothing gets done... but it gets done in half the time.
posted by pompomtom at 9:40 PM on June 11, 2007
Still nothing gets done... but it gets done in half the time.
posted by pompomtom at 9:40 PM on June 11, 2007
Something missing here - no measure of outcome. How will you know what increased employee satisfaction looks like?
Often creating a concrete description of outcome leads people to the realisation that what they want is impossible or the wrong thing - which is good.
So misha's list, which is not a bad one, is missing the initial step of defining outcomes in concrete terms.
I am against brainstorming. Contrary to popular belief, people come up with good ideas on their own, and groupthink takes over in brainstorming. Ask people to prepare beforehand. Those who actually care will. If no one cares, have a proposal of your own, which will then win by default.
See, meetings are for organising and deciding. They are not for solving problems or creating things.
Personally, these days, I either a) avoid such meetings or b) volunteer to set an agenda and chair them. That way I only go to meetings run the way I like.
You avoid meetings by asking the convenor "is my attendance necessary?" If they say yes, ask them why. Unless their reason is compelling, tell them that you're afraid you have other priorities. If your alleged role is to convey information to other attendees, and you cannot blow the meeting off for political reasons, say that you'll send an email containing the required information. If you absolutely must attend in person, say you're available for 15 minutes at the start of the meeting.
This is how you get a reputation as an efficient person who bangs heads together. Try it.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 9:51 PM on June 11, 2007
Often creating a concrete description of outcome leads people to the realisation that what they want is impossible or the wrong thing - which is good.
So misha's list, which is not a bad one, is missing the initial step of defining outcomes in concrete terms.
I am against brainstorming. Contrary to popular belief, people come up with good ideas on their own, and groupthink takes over in brainstorming. Ask people to prepare beforehand. Those who actually care will. If no one cares, have a proposal of your own, which will then win by default.
See, meetings are for organising and deciding. They are not for solving problems or creating things.
Personally, these days, I either a) avoid such meetings or b) volunteer to set an agenda and chair them. That way I only go to meetings run the way I like.
You avoid meetings by asking the convenor "is my attendance necessary?" If they say yes, ask them why. Unless their reason is compelling, tell them that you're afraid you have other priorities. If your alleged role is to convey information to other attendees, and you cannot blow the meeting off for political reasons, say that you'll send an email containing the required information. If you absolutely must attend in person, say you're available for 15 minutes at the start of the meeting.
This is how you get a reputation as an efficient person who bangs heads together. Try it.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 9:51 PM on June 11, 2007
PS: since many people hate meetings, volunteer to organise them, and then tell all but the crucial attendees that they don't have to come. People will thank you, the meetings will be smaller, and they will be shorter as well. If you are lucky no one will come and you can do whatever you planned to in the first place - but everyone will have had the opportunity to contribute.
PPS: I am not being cynical. This is how efficient organisations really work.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 10:01 PM on June 11, 2007
PPS: I am not being cynical. This is how efficient organisations really work.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 10:01 PM on June 11, 2007
A plan without a way to measure it, and a completion date is just a wish.
posted by The Deej at 10:10 PM on June 11, 2007
posted by The Deej at 10:10 PM on June 11, 2007
Yeah, the first question would be about how to measure "employee satisfaction." Good luck with that!
posted by rhizome at 10:49 PM on June 11, 2007
posted by rhizome at 10:49 PM on June 11, 2007
Building on what true said, don't overlook the fact that in many organizations, especially large ones, there are people who will resist defining outcomes or measuring progress because they find a sense of their own usefulness - which is otherwise quite often manifestly lacking - from organizing and prolonging these wheel-spinning processes. If it's feasible for you, I'd have as little to do with them as possible. And you can do it with a clear conscience because you'll be providing more value for your organization than they are.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 1:16 AM on June 12, 2007
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 1:16 AM on June 12, 2007
In my experience, the main problem is multiple agendas. You call a meeting about "increasing employee satisfaction." Sally comes, and all she can think about is the fact that she's not getting paid enough. Meanwhile, Bill is pissed off that he has to work overtime. Jenny is angry at her boss; Phil is livid that his daughter is getting a C- in Math (yes, the agendas can have nothing to do with the subject at hand).
The thing is, this is natural. This is the way people are. Getting together to discuss ONE issue -- avoiding tangent -- is counter to the way most people operate. Which is not to say it's bad. I think it's a GOOD thing for people to get together to focus on a single problem, but it's not going to happen by default.
You NEED a facilitator. And the facilitator should be removed from the group. In the best-case-scenario, you higher a contractor. Barring this, maybe someone from another department. I'm sure most companies won't do this -- especially the contractor version -- but if they did, they'd wind up saving tons of time and money, and they'd actually get some problems solved.
The facilitator would BRUTALLY ensure that meetings stay on track. He should be removed, because no one who works with Phil wants to tell him to stop talking about his daughter.
The facilitator should also work with the meeting planners, prior to the meeting. He should say things like, "Increasing employee satisfaction? That's too vague. We're not going to call a meeting to discuss something so vague. We need to tighten the agenda first."
The facilitator would also END meetings if he sensed they were becoming pointless. Often, he would end them and then re-group with the meeting planners to help them schedule a future, more-productive meeting.
A couple of other thoughts: a meeting should be about ONE thing. If you need to discuss salary and health plans, have two meetings. Otherwise, you'll have people who are obsessed with health plans not listening to the salary part -- or worse, consciously or unconsciously sabotaging the salary part so that they can get the meeting to move on to the part that matters to them.
(Honestly, I think I'm going to get a tattoo that says DO ONE THING AT ONCE. Multi-tasking is a blight. People need to learn to send emails about ONE thing. I've heard so many people complain that they send out an email about three issues and people ignore two of them. When I suggest sending out an email about one issue, they say, "people should be smart enough to concentrate on more than one thing at a time." Yes, they should. They're not. Get over it. DEAL WITH ONE THING AT A TIME.
Anyone who is a designer knows this devil. You try to get the client to tell you the ONE message he wants on his home page. He says, "That we're less expensive than our competitors ... oh, and also that we're conveniently located ... oh, and also that we have a special deal this month ... oh, and also..." LESS IS MORE!)
Second thought: people NEED to blow off steam and talk about tangents. You allow this in your business, don't you? Or do people get in trouble if they gossip at the water-cooler? If you want meeting to stay on-track, you need to allow other times for people to get off-track.
posted by grumblebee at 7:37 AM on June 12, 2007
The thing is, this is natural. This is the way people are. Getting together to discuss ONE issue -- avoiding tangent -- is counter to the way most people operate. Which is not to say it's bad. I think it's a GOOD thing for people to get together to focus on a single problem, but it's not going to happen by default.
You NEED a facilitator. And the facilitator should be removed from the group. In the best-case-scenario, you higher a contractor. Barring this, maybe someone from another department. I'm sure most companies won't do this -- especially the contractor version -- but if they did, they'd wind up saving tons of time and money, and they'd actually get some problems solved.
The facilitator would BRUTALLY ensure that meetings stay on track. He should be removed, because no one who works with Phil wants to tell him to stop talking about his daughter.
The facilitator should also work with the meeting planners, prior to the meeting. He should say things like, "Increasing employee satisfaction? That's too vague. We're not going to call a meeting to discuss something so vague. We need to tighten the agenda first."
The facilitator would also END meetings if he sensed they were becoming pointless. Often, he would end them and then re-group with the meeting planners to help them schedule a future, more-productive meeting.
A couple of other thoughts: a meeting should be about ONE thing. If you need to discuss salary and health plans, have two meetings. Otherwise, you'll have people who are obsessed with health plans not listening to the salary part -- or worse, consciously or unconsciously sabotaging the salary part so that they can get the meeting to move on to the part that matters to them.
(Honestly, I think I'm going to get a tattoo that says DO ONE THING AT ONCE. Multi-tasking is a blight. People need to learn to send emails about ONE thing. I've heard so many people complain that they send out an email about three issues and people ignore two of them. When I suggest sending out an email about one issue, they say, "people should be smart enough to concentrate on more than one thing at a time." Yes, they should. They're not. Get over it. DEAL WITH ONE THING AT A TIME.
Anyone who is a designer knows this devil. You try to get the client to tell you the ONE message he wants on his home page. He says, "That we're less expensive than our competitors ... oh, and also that we're conveniently located ... oh, and also that we have a special deal this month ... oh, and also..." LESS IS MORE!)
Second thought: people NEED to blow off steam and talk about tangents. You allow this in your business, don't you? Or do people get in trouble if they gossip at the water-cooler? If you want meeting to stay on-track, you need to allow other times for people to get off-track.
posted by grumblebee at 7:37 AM on June 12, 2007
Yeah, the first question would be about how to measure "employee satisfaction." Good luck with that!
posted by rhizome
Actually, it is doable. Our organization does an annual survey, prepared by an independent contractor to measure such things. I'm sure it's not perfect, and a lot of the answers may depend on how that day is going, but it probably can show trends.
posted by The Deej at 7:53 AM on June 12, 2007
posted by rhizome
Actually, it is doable. Our organization does an annual survey, prepared by an independent contractor to measure such things. I'm sure it's not perfect, and a lot of the answers may depend on how that day is going, but it probably can show trends.
posted by The Deej at 7:53 AM on June 12, 2007
If more companies either hired or cultivated facilitators this would be less of a problem.
You can learn facilitation techniques and bring them into situations like this.
For example, the classic for "increasing employee satisfaction" would be Stop Start Continue. You would hold a series of sessions with employees, or one session with folks who have already talked with employees in this format. Everyone collectively generates lists of things the company should stop doing, start doing, or continue doing to contribute to employee satisfaction. This provides a framework to focus on. Maybe everyone says "having marshmallow fights at lunchtime would increase employee satisfaction" this gives you a project to focus on. Perhaps fruitlessly, but it's something to focus on.
And I repeat what others have said: every meeting agenda should list a concrete goal, and the most important person at any meeting is the one who says "what does success look like?"
posted by Mozzie at 10:45 AM on June 12, 2007
You can learn facilitation techniques and bring them into situations like this.
For example, the classic for "increasing employee satisfaction" would be Stop Start Continue. You would hold a series of sessions with employees, or one session with folks who have already talked with employees in this format. Everyone collectively generates lists of things the company should stop doing, start doing, or continue doing to contribute to employee satisfaction. This provides a framework to focus on. Maybe everyone says "having marshmallow fights at lunchtime would increase employee satisfaction" this gives you a project to focus on. Perhaps fruitlessly, but it's something to focus on.
And I repeat what others have said: every meeting agenda should list a concrete goal, and the most important person at any meeting is the one who says "what does success look like?"
posted by Mozzie at 10:45 AM on June 12, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by true at 7:26 PM on June 11, 2007