To Meet or Not to Meet? That is the Question.
We’ve (likely) all lived them in one context or another, but now I’m less active in a world where they were as ‘normal’ for me as any other thing that is/was normal for me, I have questions about them. Yep, here we go. She’s going to rant.
People gather to (usually) work through a pre-decided agenda. The people in the room (literal or virtual) have a level of connection (however small or great) with the group of people or the organisation who are meeting. Lovely.
My first question is, what is the aim of these meetings? Oh, yes, I realise it’s often going to involve talking about the next steps for development of the collective/group/company (in terms of financial/data driven goals/mission/whatever). Fine.
So, what does that talk (which happens over coffee (or similar), if it’s in-person or wine (or similar) hidden in a mug, if it’s virtual) result in? Well, Dawn, there will obviously be ‘actions’ for specific people that will play an important part in moving the organisation (of whatever kind) nearer to the goals it has set (or is setting). Okay. Lovely.
Um, you do know that as soon as 95% (my data, not informed by anything other than my experiences and observations) of the people leave the literal or virtual room, they’re onto the next thing for them? Yeah?
And you do realise that those all-important action points become something to achieve (as a matter of sudden urgency) after the minutes of the meeting are re-emailed out just before the time of the next meeting? Yes?
And that it’s at this point when the person who has the actions goes into some level of overdrive to ensure they have achieved these before the start of the meeting (at best) or by the point that agenda item appears within the next meeting? Yes?
And this must be done so as not to lose face in front of the gathered collection of people, whilst portraying the message of how important the collective aims and goals are? Yes? Of course, you realise that…because if we’re honest, most of us do/have been known to do that.
My husband went to a local arty meeting the other evening and it was all very positive. He came back quite excited. I do realise that it would be wise for me to sometimes lock up my inner sceptic, but unfortunately (for him) she escaped and made a tiny (and it was tiny) appearance in the conversation.
“So, what happens next?”
“Well, the person who led the meeting will write up the minutes and share those with us all….(My internal being thought and remembered not to say, ‘And most of you won’t even open them’…I did well, right? I know it’s a poor show when someone rains on whatever the parade…and (on this occasion) I did keep those thoughts internal.)…and people have got individual action points to help towards to main objective then we’re going to meet again.”
Oh my. Oh my. Oh my. Dawn…keep all thoughts about it inside yourself. And I did, although I can see that maybe now, they are escaping, just in a slightly different way. Oooops. In the case of his meeting (to be fair), he has already actioned three of his action points and their collective might be different…but the whole ‘meeting thing’ landed in my head and started coming our of my typing fingers – as will be already obvious.
If you’re honest with yourself (no need to tell anyone else, unless you choose to), how often is the actual format that a meeting leads to a meeting which leads to a meeting? It’s quite often, isn’t it?
Is it not true that the meetings themselves provide the perfect cover-story to demonstrate the aims and objectives of the ‘group’ (to use a general term – even though he wasn’t invited) are being prioritised and furthered? The meetings (and eventually completed/partially completed action points) somehow prove this, don’t they? And they can be used as evidence that this process is happening to those who are looking on in judgement or who metaphorically walk into the situation periodically to check on the necessary progress. Right?
At some points in my own career, I would go from meeting to meeting to meeting to meeting. Any meeting I came out of without action points (unusual) was an excellent meeting. Was it? Or was I just feeling the relief of no more ‘to-dos’ which just made the meeting seem excellent? And on that, are meetings generally more positively received by those who can see others being given ‘action points’ while they can keep breathing, sit back (slightly) and realise they are free to get into the next scheduled meeting, hopefully to also escape with no actions to achieve? I’m not sure we’ll ever get data for that, but it’s something I now consider to be ‘likely truth’. My ‘to do’ list in my role was ever-increasing, and I needed to get to the end of whatever the next meetings were, so I could take a comfort break at best, or make more coffee, ahead of whatever else was in my diary.
And this is all just the bit about action points. What about the rest of ‘meeting ridiculousness-es’?
If you’re the one creating the agenda or leading the meeting… “Bless you”, is all I can say right now. I realise that you know there will be those who are undoubtedly ‘with you’ (and they are). We’re aware that it’s never a bad shout to focus on them, engage positively with them and encourage them, right? We all know that it’s a good thing if that can be achieved with all in the meeting, yes, of course. However, what about those who are looking for a fight or a disagreement and that’s their (seeming) objective, rather than their objections being part of the route to get the organisation to a point of being able to genuinely move forward positively? It is (I believe) best to try not to absorb what is being given off by those participants. Yes, they can say their piece (and then they might settle down because they’ve then been ‘seen to be’ involved as active contributors) but really, the ‘being seen to be involved’ was often more of their aim than to make any positive contribution to whatever goals and objectives there are/will be. Those types are everywhere present, I am very sure.
Okay, because of social protocols I don’t understand (and doubt I ever will), I realise there is a place for letting people splurge their stuff (if it’s relevant). But please remember that you do not necessarily have to justify every tiny detail of whatever your collective foci are. And neither is there a necessity to defend yourself, unless contextually this becomes appropriate (and you’re getting the ‘nod’ from those who are ‘with you’). What we focus on we breed (I think), so as soon as it’s possible to move on, do so…ideally without the need to any kind of rudeness or negative manner. We all know that, right?
Then there are the ‘looker-on-ers’. They seem to be engaging (because they’ve learnt the real life/virtual body language skills to ensure they easily ‘pass’ as engaging participants), but really, they’re half listening (at best) and their post-meeting involvement will mostly involve slating whatever has been said by someone else (singular or plural). These are the ones who historically have wound me up the most. My internal dialogue about such beings? Easy:
“If you want to be here and ‘work with’ us, fantastic. If you want to contribute, marvellous. If you want to suggest something…go for it. All suggestions are genuinely welcomed. However, if you are simply to be negative, to drain the room of inspiration or ideas and to be wholly critical of any who genuinely were wanting to positively participate, please go away.”
The trouble is, having this internal dialogue can’t be vocalised externally because there will (undoubtedly) be some kind of ‘reason’ why that person will go into attack. They might even use the avenue of saying they are being discriminated against if their voice isn’t being taken in the way they feel it should. Oh my. Don’t get me wrong…I believe discrimination is wrong and must be challenged. However, I am aware the term ‘discrimination’ can also occasionally be used as a manipulative tool. It might seem harsh to write it, but I have seen it play out repeatedly. And by individuals using it in this way, they are (in effect) blurring the clarity of actual discrimination (that which must be managed and dealt with) versus what is not.
When did we become a people who used ‘discrimination’ as a weapon when really it was more about that person not getting their own way? When did we become people who found it far easier to talk about what is wrong before it was even possible for us to consider trying to find a path that might be better? When did we need to be the people who would tear others down behind their backs (whilst being under our own delusion that others were not doing the same about us)? I hate it. I realise we’re not all like it all the time…but I do see this trait in every human I have met in one form or another – even if it only occasionally and slightly rears its metaphorical head. I wish we were generally kinder. I really do wish that.
I do realise that meetings need to happen so that collective progress can be achieved. My issue with them is more nuanced than a global ban of meetings. My issue is more about the reality of what meetings have become in so many contexts and scenarios; secular and faith-based, professional and non-professional or (supposedly, but this isn’t always true) 'non-profit' organisations etc. If it is just a meeting to lead to a meeting to lead to a meeting…might it simply be another meeting that could have been an email?