Chapter 1
How to Determine When a Meeting is Necessary and Productive
When Is a Meeting Necessary?
The word necessary is probably too strong. A meeting is never absolutely necessary. Life would go on and organizations would continue to operate even if meetings were not held. Substitute approaches could be made. The substitute approaches might cost more or be less effective, but they could be used.
The word desirable is a better word.
Consider the different types of meetings, and see whether the meeting or another approach is desirable. In making this decision, consider alternative approaches to accomplish the objectives.
Information-Giving Meeting
Before deciding to have a meeting to give information, the leader should consider the alternatives, such as a written memo or report. Obviously, the written approach would be cheaper, but the question is Would people understand the message as well? If the leader feels that the information would not be understood (and perhaps not even be read), a meeting might be desirable (even though more expensive) to call the people together and present the information orally. Also, visual aids could be used to maintain interest and help create understanding.
Sometimes a meeting is called to create proper attitudes or, more specifically, to sell the participants on an idea, policy, or decision that has been made. It is more than an information giving meeting. When a leader determines that the participants must be sold, there are several approaches to consider:
Put it in writing.
Talk to each person on an individual basis.
Call a meeting.
There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. In general, the written approach is not as good as the oral approach. The oral approach offers more possibilities for persuasion by the leader. It also offers the flexibility of adjusting to the reaction of the sellee. Additionally, it offers more opportunity for repetition, emphasis, overcoming objections, and tailoring the sales approach to the individual. However, the written approach is usually cheaper and faster.
In comparing a meeting to the individual contact approach, the main difference is the interaction among the participants. If the leader feels that interaction will help sell the idea, policy, or decision, the meeting is a good choice. If the interaction might make it more difficult to sell, the individual approach is best. The cost and speed for using the two approaches are typically about even.
Instructional Meeting
There are many approaches that can be used to train and develop people:
reading books or articles
attending correspondence courses
coaching by the boss or other qualified person
instructing individuals with or without a computer
sending individuals to an outside training course
conducting in-house training meetings.
All of the training approaches, if effective, can improve the knowledge, skill, attitude, and behavior of the trainee. Each has certain advantages and disadvantages related to the cost-benefit ratio.
Below are some of the benefits to consider when deciding whether to conduct in-house training meetings:
A number of people (a minimum of 10) have common training needs.
A training meeting can satisfy the needs.
Qualified instructors are available from inside or outside the organization.
Good facilities are available for the meetings.
Time for the participants will be made available by their line managers, or the participants are willing to take the training on their own time, or the organization is willing to pay participants for attending on their own time.
A qualified in-house person is willing and able to spend time to plan and coordinate the meetings.
The benefits are worth the cost.
Problem-Solving Meeting
A problem-solving meeting has one objective: to solve a problem. If the leader happens to be the boss, the problem could be solved by the leader without calling a meeting. However, the leader might feel that a problem-solving meeting is desirable to get a better quality solution or better acceptance from the participants. For example, there may be a production problem that must be solved. The enthusiastic acceptance of the solution by subordinates might be an important factor in whether the solution works. Many bosses have made good decisions in solving problems only to discover that subordinates sabotage these decisions intentionally or otherwise because of their lack of acceptance of the solution. In cases of this type, problem solving might be a desirable reason for a meeting if the participants can help to solve the problem or carry it out. In his book The Change Resistors, George Odiorne (1981) wrote: “If you want people to accept a decision, give them a feeling of ownership.” The problem-solving approach illustrates this concept of getting participation to increase acceptance.
Information-Getting Meeting
If the leader wants to get information from others, a meeting seems to be the obvious method. The leader can call the people together and ask each person for ideas, reactions, accomplishments, problems, solutions, or other kinds of information. Other ways to get this information should also be considered. For example, the leader can ask each person to write down the information and send it back to the leader. If this will provide the necessary information, the individual reports would be much cheaper than a group meeting. If it is important for the others to know the ideas of each, the leader can provide copies of the written materials to each person concerned instead of holding a meeting. But if it is important to have interaction among the individuals concerned, then a meeting becomes the most desirable method. In addition, if the leader determines that more and better information can be obtained in a meeting, then a meeting would be the most desirable method.
One specific example of a meeting to get information is called brainstorming. The slogan for a brainstorming meeting is Think up or Shut up. The purpose is to generate a large quantity of ideas. Freewheeling is encouraged, and judgment is forbidden. Ideas could also be solicited on an individual basis without having a meeting. But the meeting provides an opportunity for hitchhiking—one person's ideas stimulate ideas from others. If this interaction among the participants is important, then a meeting is the best method.
Comparing the Benefits and the Costs
During World War II, Ernie Pyle, a famous war correspondent, was asked by the military to help solve the problem of Nazi submarines in the Atlantic. Military spokespeople told Ernie of the problems the Nazis were causing by torpedoing American troop and merchant ships. After thinking a few moments, Ernie said, “Boil the ocean. Submarines can't operate in boiling water.”
A military spokesperson replied, “But Ernie, how can we ever do that?”
Ernie replied, “I've given you the solution. You work out the details!”
It's easy to say that benefits should be compared to costs, but it's something else to actually compare the two. However, the cost-benefit comparison should be attempted as objectively as possible.
If, after careful consideration, a decision is made that in-house training meetings are undesirable but training needs exist, then alternative training approaches should be used.
When Is a Meeting Productive?
After a meeting adjourns, comments from participants may vary from “That was an excellent meeting” to “That meeting was a waste of time.” Frequently, the leader feels that it was a productive meeting because the objectives were accomplished, but participants who attended feel that the meeting was nonproductive and ineffective. Why? Because there is a difference of opinion on what constitutes a productive meeting.
The first criterion for a productive meeting: Were the objectives accomplished? This assumes, of course, that the objectives of the meeting were worthwhile. These are usually determined by the leader.
The second criterion for a productive meeting: Were the objectives accomplished in minimum time? This criterion is more difficult to determine. Some participants think that comments, reactions, and discussion are necessary. Other participants may feel that this is a complete waste of time. And the leader may not be sure which is right.
The third criterion for a productive meeting: Are the participants satisfied? This doesn't mean that they have to be happy about the subject of the meeting or about the decisions that were reached. For example, the objective may be to communicate to the participants that there are going to be layoffs. Those in the meeting may have to reduce their staffs. Obviously, the participants will not be happy. They may be satisfied, however, if they understand the reasons for the layoffs and have a chance to raise questions and perhaps suggest alternative solutions to the problem of excessive costs. To get satisfied participants, it may be necessary to allow time for free and open discussion.
There are three necessary criteria for a meeting to be productive:
1. The objectives were accomplished.
2. The meeting was conducted in minimum time.
3. The participants were satisfied.
It becomes obvious that minimum time and satisfied participants present a dilemma for the leader. Whenever the leader concludes a meeting and says, “I accomplished my objectives in minimum time,” the other question must also be asked: “Are the participants satisfied with the meeting?”
Chapter 12 describes how these three criteria can be evaluated.