Professional Interactions – Best Practices Series
Review Your Meeting Dynamics
By Fred Corbus
This article first appeared in Round-up Magazine, official publication of the Maricopa County Medical Society.
What's worse than being responsible for a large meeting that 'went bad'? Your self worth is damaged and you're suffering from embarrassment, frustration, and guilt. Your mind races with questions and surmised answers that might serve as guidelines for never letting this happen again. Meetings are always judged. Evaluations range anywhere from 'that was one of the most boring and useless meetings I've ever been to!' to 'Boy, we really got something accomplished!' Nothing is more energizing than a really 'good' meeting and nothing is more aggravating than a 'bad' one.
Case Study
A few years ago, I was called to coach the board of directors of a large medical group on the subject of governance. As usual, I began the assignment by personally interviewing each director. Clues kept appearing throughout my interview notes indicating that their meetings were neither productive nor fun. In a case such as this, one of the first things I do is to attend a meeting as a non-participant, away from the actual conversation, jotting down notes that paint a picture of their communication and decision-making process. In other words, an examination of their meeting dynamics. The finding was painfully clear. One of the reasons they could not govern the group was because they did not know how to design and conduct a productive meeting.
Over the years, I have found an amazingly refreshing, yet simple rule: people will begin changing their meeting habits if they specifically know what to change. I documented such things as when:
- The meeting objective was unclear
- Someone diverted the conversation
- Time limits were not set
- There was no urgency to move to the next topic
- Side conversations took place
- People were allowed to remain silent
- One or more people were allowed to take over the meeting
- The group failed to reach a conclusion
These maladies were the norm!
When the meeting was over, I told the board that I would draft a simple one page report and review it with everyone present. My report was specific and very candid; as I read it, the room fell into immediate agreement (often chuckling at each other). The report was a revealing picture of their meetings. Most importantly, everyone now had a checklist of improvements and a license to talk about it. I can honestly say, that six months later I could barely recognize the original set of meeting dynamics.
Controlling Meeting Quality is the Responsibility of the Person Leading the Meeting
As a matter of practice, most meetings are 'run' by somebody who is assuming the role of facilitator. That person's effectiveness is heavily dependent upon an understanding and buy-in by all attendees of discussion rules.
The role and responsibilities of an accomplished facilitator can be boiled down into the following 11 items:
- Design an agenda.
- Start on time.
- Balance discussion and participation.
- Keep discussion focused on the topic.
- Balance discussion time against decision time.
- Discourage side talking.
- Process 'hidden agendas' and interpersonal issues.
- Synthesize and state feelings and decisions.
- Reach comprehended closure on agreements, decisions, and action plans.
- End on time.
- Polish and distribute meeting agreements, decisions, and action plans.
Face It, Sometimes You Have to Dissect the Problem
Even though the agenda might be exactly the same, we all know that different meetings create very different results. Location, time of day, and other external factors play a role, but the single most influential factor is the behavior of participants. The greater the quality of professional interactions, the greater the quality of meeting results. When it becomes obvious that meeting results are being compromised, the introduction of a self-evaluation form can be extremely valuable. If this process is new to the group, (and therefore possibly threatening) the form should exclude profiles of individual member behaviors listed as items 22-27 of the table below.
Before the meeting begins, each person must understand the process and be willing to fill out his/her own evaluation form. Typically, somebody then goes around the room making a note of each person's evaluation on each topic. A tally is made (i.e. how many people gave an 'Always' rating for topic #1 and so forth). This forms the basis for discussion and the development of action plans to correct deficiencies.
'The development of documents such as these is an investment of time; requiring meetings where participants listen and understand. Giving a joyful environment within which to practice medicine makes it all worthwhile!'
To receive a collection of inspirational quotations, click here.