The burden of effective meeting management does not rest solely on the shoulders of the leader. Group members need to engage in the following proactive strategies:8

• Determine whether you need to attend the meeting. Don’t attend merely because you have been invited. If you have doubts about whether the meeting’s agenda applies to you, discuss with the leader why he or she feels your presence is important.

• Prepare. Acquaint yourself with the agenda and prepare any reports or information that will facilitate others’ understanding of the issues. Come prepared with questions that will help you understand the issues.

• Be on time. Stragglers not only waste the time of other participants by delaying the meeting or requiring summaries of what has happened but also hinder effective team building and hurt morale. At Microsoft’s New England Research and Development Center, meetings start exactly 10 minutes after the hour. According to the company’s senior director, the unusual start time reduces stragglers and makes it easier for everyone to start on time.9

• Ask for clarification on points that are unclear or ambiguous. Most of the time, you will find that others in the room have the same question but are too timid to speak out.

• When giving information, be precise and to the point. Don’t bore everyone with anecdotes and details that add little to your point.

• Listen. Keep eye contact with whoever is speaking and try to ascertain the underlying ideas behind the comments. Be sensitive to the effect of your nonverbal behavior on speakers, such as slouching, doodling or reading.

• Be supportive of other group members. Acknowledge and build on the comments of others (e.g., “As Jane was saying…”).

• Ensure equitable participation. Take the lead in involving others so that everyone’s talents are used. This is especially important if you know that some participants’ points of view are not being included in the discussion. This can be accomplished by encouraging those who rarely participate (e.g., “Jim, your unit worked on something like this last year. What was your experience like?”).

• Make disagreements principle based. If it is necessary to disagree with or challenge the comments of others, follow the guidelines for collaborative conflict management (e.g., base your comments on commonly held principles or values; for instance: “That’s an interesting idea, Bill, but how does it square with the president’s emphasis on cost-cutting?”).

• Act and react in a way that will enhance the group performance. In other words, leave your personal agendas at the door and work toward the goals of the group.

Symptoms: Many people agree to perform tasks and accomplish goals that they cannot possibly do in the time allowed. In some cases, this problem is attributable to the pressures placed on managers to accomplish goals and say “yes.” However, in many more instances, the overcommitment problem stems from a fundamental inability to estimate how long it will take to accomplish a task.10 In addition, people tend to make commitments in advance because their confidence in their ability to finish is higher when they are further away from the task.11 Most people make subjective mental estimates of how long it will take to accomplish a task, such as writing a report, collecting information, or interviewing a recruit, by imagining the scenario and then estimating a timeline based upon the running of the scenario. However, peoples’ mental simulations fail to take into account the process losses that will inevitably thwart their efforts. For example, when they expect to spend 2 weeks writing a report, they fail to anticipate that their printer will break down and that they will have to spend a day offsite. Consequently, most managers are consistently behind schedule.

In many cases, managers and executives are asked to commit themselves to perform tasks and events at some time in the distant future. For example, a team leader might be asked to enroll in a 3-day course next year, travel abroad to interview other team members, or attend a conference. Many people agree to these future invitations but when the time approaches, regret that they have to do what they promised.12 People fail to adequately weigh the importance of their future opportunities and time constraints, so they commit to things in the future that they would most likely decline to do in the present.

Treatment: The easiest way to deal with the overcommitment problem is to simply double (or triple) the amount of time projected to accomplish a task. For example, publishers typically add 6 months to an author’s projected completion time for a manuscript. Another way of combating the bias is to break the task down into its different elements and then estimate the time necessary to complete each part—people are more accurate at estimating the time necessary to accomplish smaller tasks. When someone asks you to do something, such as write a report, travel, or make a presentation, imagine that you are being asked to do this the next week, or even the next day. If you are disinclined, it may not be a good idea to take it on.

Symptoms: Often, teams are uncomfortable making decisions. This is particularly true when the decision matter is complex and value laden. Under such conditions, teams will do nearly anything to avoid making decisions. The manager faces an avoidance–avoidance conflict: Making a decision is difficult, but not making a decision makes one appear indecisive. Managers often respond to this avoidance–avoidance conflict by requesting more information. In theory, the amount of information relevant to any decision situation is boundless; however, at some point, decisions must be made. One way of avoiding decision making but not appearing to be indecisive, is to request additional information. This makes people feel as though they are making progress, but actually the additional information may not be diagnostic or useful. It is merely gathered so that the team members can better cognitively justify their decision. Decision avoidance is a particular concern when teams make negative decisions, such as downsizing.

Consider, for example, the following scenario:

The preceding rationale is known as the sure-thing principle. It would seem irrational, or somewhat silly, if the businessperson in this case were to delay purchase until after the election or to pay money to find out the election results ahead of time. Yet in organizations, decision makers often pursue noninstrumental information—information that appears relevant, but if available, would have no impact on choice. The problem does not end there. Once they pursue such information, people then use it to make their decision. Consequently, the pursuit of information that would have had no impact on choice leads people to make choices they otherwise would not have made.14

Treatment: The decision trap of calling for more information can best be dealt with by keeping a clear log that details the history of the decision. For example, a team member might say something like, “You know, this issue was first brought up two years ago and it was agreed that a competitive analysis was necessary. This competitive analysis was performed and I brought you the results the following spring. Then, it was suggested that a task force be formed. We did this and came to some conclusions in a report circulated last fall. We agreed at that time that we would make a decision at this meeting. I realize that more information is always better, but I am beginning to wonder whether the costs of continuing to search for information are a way of avoiding a decision.” This strategy is especially important in teams where membership changes (and, hence, organizational memory is lost) and in teams that must make tough decisions (e.g., employment terminations).

Symptoms: Many teams face decisions that they make on a repeated basis. For example, merit review decisions, hiring decisions, admission decisions, funding decisions, and so on are all decisions that must be made repeatedly. However, teams often exhibit a memory loss of sorts, in terms of how they made previous decisions. As a result, they spend precious time arguing with one another as to how they made the decision in the past, and memories prove to be fallible. The failed memory problem is most likely to afflict teams that have not created a sufficient organizational memory. The failed memory problem also haunts teams that experience turnover. Under these situations, team members who take notes or have some kind of record have an enormous advantage.

Treatment: The key here is to make the process explicit and then to have it recorded in some fashion so that it can be later retrieved. The problem is that most people trust their memories at the time they are discussing the issue or making the decision; consequently, they don’t bother to write down what they believe will be burned into their memory.