Get me out of this meeting. I’m dying!

  1. Share
0 0

In 2004, I accepted a VP role for an organization that was expanding globally, and as a result, I was overwhelmed by the number of meetings I was expected to attend!

Frustrated with endless meetings and the lack of decision-making and productivity, it became obvious to me that we didn’t always have the right people in the room, and how this often undermined the outstanding ability of others in the organization.

After reading Patrick Lencioni’s, Death by Meeting, I conducted an audit of all the meetings I was asked to attend, including where someone (or more than one) from my department was required to be [i] .

I included ‘vertical’ meetings that were initiated from higher up the leadership chain and down the line when staff wanted me to be there so they could get a decision. And ‘horizontal’ meetings where cross-functional representation or buy-in was needed from different teams.

What was even more revealing to me than the cost of conducting all of these meetings, was the reality that many of them concluded with no clear result or measurable outcome. It didn’t take me long to realize that this was reflective of larger, systemic issues in the organization’s culture.

A number of years ago, Dr. Adizes introduced the need for ‘CAPI’ to be present at meetings if effective outcomes are to be achieved. Essentially, CAPI is the (C) coalescence of (A) authority, (P) power and (I) influence [ii].

Authority

If the purpose of a meeting is to see a decision made, then it is critical to have a person in the room that has the authority, or legal right to make that decision. That person must be able to say ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘wait’.

Power

However, we’ve all attended meetings and been frustrated by seeing good decisions thwarted by people who have the ability to withhold their cooperation or that of their team. Because they have ‘the power to punish or reward’, it is better to have them in the meetings.

Influence

Finally, there is the need to have subject matter experts to influence the outcome without having to use authority or power.

If the purpose of a meeting is to see a decision made, then it is critical to have a person in the room that has the authority, or legal right, to make that decision. That person must be able to say ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘wait’.

However, we’ve all attended meetings and been frustrated by seeing good decisions thwarted by people who have the ability to withhold their cooperation or that of their team. Adizes describes this ability as “the power to punish or reward.” Therefore, better to have them represented in the meetings.

Finally, there is the need to have someone at the meeting who has the ability to influence, or convince others to do something without having to use authority or power. Dr. Adizes refers to these people as ‘integrators’ or ‘influencers’.

We see two of LCP’s 5 Leadership Anchors™ reflected in the Adizes model—the importance of leveraging relational currency and transforming goals and outcomes.

 

What’s the bottom-line?

We know there are many factors that can make it difficult for leaders and organizations to always achieve win-win scenarios, but it is possible to increase the probability of achieving them by holding more productive meetings – and less of them!

For the record, I implemented a new system of meetings for my department that improved communication, increased productivity, and gave us a lot more time to do the work rather than discuss the work.

 

[i] Patrick Lencioni, Death by Meeting (San Francisco: Jossy-Bass), 2004.

[ii] Dr. Ichak Adizes, Managing Corporate Lifecycles (Santa Barbara: Adizes Institute Publications, 2004), 267.

Community tags

This content has 0 tags that match your profile.

Leadership Insights

Comments

To leave a comment, login or sign up.

Related Content

2
Learn the art of asking strategic questions, not convenient ones
You won’t agree with everything that Levitt and Dubner present in Freakonomics (2009), but it will make you wonder if you are asking the right questions. [1] Levitt and Dubner appeal to the person in the street who doesn’t have time to read all of the research available on an area of interest or something significant that appears in a headline. They consider themselves ‘rogues’ because they don’t accept ‘conventional wisdom’. To do so, often draws loose, or shaky conclusions from research that are already based on a set of assumptions or firmly held beliefs. Levitt and Dubner draw upon numerous examples to demonstrate that ‘conventional wisdom is more about ‘convenient truth’, in that most people can’t be bothered really trying to find out what the problem might be; they settle for an explanation or interpretation from someone else, usually an ‘expert’ or ‘authority’ figure. In a world where it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern what is ‘real’ news or ‘fake’ news, or where we are presented with just enough information to enable a ‘quick-win’ at work, asking the right questions is important. Levitt and Dubner’s method is not rocket science. They just don’t accept the status quo. They take a particular finding that supposedly explains the reason for its existence and then, rather than accepting it as truth, begin to explore if there is a better question that should have been asked. It’s a form of professional scepticism. Don’t believe it until you have absolutely discovered what is the right question to ask. What is the question that will take you to the core of the issue?   What’s the bottom-line? Learn to discern the best question to ask, in any situation. Don’t just accept the commonly held view, or what Levitt & Dubner call the ‘convenient truth.’ When you are tempted to be defensive about a position you have taken and don’t allow others to question or challenge your assumptions, your conclusion just might be more about you than it is about the outcome. Leaders ask questions. What are some questions that would help you resolve a difficult situation you are facing at work? What would enable you to take things to a whole new level of productivity or success? Practice the art of asking discerning questions and be ready when others do the same. [1] Levitt, Steven D., and Stephen J. Dubner. (2009). Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (New York, HarperPerennial.
0
Making 'reflection' a core leadership practice
Returning from a global leadership intensive with participants from Africa, Asia and the U.S, I couldn’t help but notice how challenging it can be to invest adequate time reflecting on our current role, what has contributed to it the most, and what continues to shape the way we make decisions, set goals, and mobilize others. By doing this we often overlook the significance of key connections and their importance to our success. Some of the other participants described the importance of this reflective experience – “It’s nice to look back at my journey and identify specific people and experiences that helped me become who I am now”. “Perhaps for the first time in thirty years, I stopped long enough to understand how my strengths as a leader impact those I lead – positively and negatively”. “I began to see a significant disconnect between what motivated me and what motivated other members of my team”. “I obviously need to refocus how I manage my relationships. I have tended to take my interpersonal skills for granted, but realise I need to be more intentional in building stronger connections with those I work with”. When we move immediately to the next thing on our list of priorities after concluding a meeting or project, it is often at the expense of examining whether or not things could have been done better; if the process could have been improved by including different people; or how it might have been possible to achieve a broader set of objectives longer-term. We mistakenly believe that a time of reflection equates to an unnecessary roadblock or pause. Forrester argues that when organizations fail to incentivize reflection, they are setting themselves up to achieve the same result they didn’t want in the first instance .[i]. It is why Watkins encourages leaders to adopt a simple framework to help them accelerate their learning and adapt what they do next to what the situation requires [ii].   What’s the bottom-line? Foundational to good decision-making is making reflection a core practice of your leadership. It helps you to be more purposeful in exploring how things might be connected and its relevance to what needs to happen next. Below are some questions you might ask yourself – How does my experience affect the way I lead others? What have I learned from experiences that have impacted me negatively? When am I at my best? When is my team at their best? What could I have done differently or better to achieve the result I wanted? I may not have got the result I was after, but what important lessons did I learn?   [i] Daniel Patrick Forrester, Consider: Harnessing the Power of Reflective Thinking in Your Organization (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011). [ii] Michael Watkins, The First 90 Days: Critical Success Strategies for New Leaders at All Levels (Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, 2003).