The boys or grrls over at
Trizzle.com
had
this
thin post about stand-up meetings. I wasn't
impressed but it started me thinking. I commented on their
blog...
My comment on their post...
While standing up gets people to realize is a meeting pace. Meeting
pace takes many things into consideration. Scrum uses several things
to manage meeting pace. The most important is having everyone who
attends be prepared to contribute.
Being prepared to
contribute involves two main things. Understanding
the content of your contribution, and being prepared to deliver that
content concisely.
In my team management work, I have deployed a daily "stand-up" where
people don't stand up but can get through a daily status with 20
contributors in less than 10 minutes. If you think that is
unbelievable, or sounds like a run-on Jimmy John's commercial, it is
because the team was prepared to deliver the necessary content
(delivery status for weekly iteration) as 3 numbers. Only if the
numbers revealed a problem was the contributor expected to reveal the
detail behind. Is this extreme? Yes! Effective? Yes? Did it take a
while to get used to? Hell Yes!!!
Can most meetings benefit from this approach - Only if you can dictate
(like a boss) what content each contributor will deliver, and provide a
concise template for them to use (3 numbers). As long as either of
these things are not deterministic, then contributors are free to make
it up as they go, and are much more likely to show up unprepared.
Then I kept thinking about it...
Could I improve the effectiveness of every meeting that I called?
Could I improve the effectiveness of every meeting that I attended?
How?
Improving Meeting Effectiveness
So if I were going to improve the effectiveness in meetings that I
called, I could use the principle above to achieve the goal!!!
I could do the following things:
- Call meetings with a desired result ( Meeting to decide
what we will do to solve problem X) - This is huge - no
meetings to discuss problem x, no meetings to screw off and gossip
about co-workers, meetings focused on a result. Could that
result be gathering information? Sure! but does that require a meeting?
Do I have to wait until I can get everyone's schedule, would
information gathering be better done asynchronously (have everyone
send an e-mail).
- Publish an agenda, and all available information when
scheduling the meeting - with enough time before the meeting to
reasonably expect people to review.
- Provide guidelines (templates, questions, etc) for content
for each contributor - this may apply to recurring meetings -
monthly/weekly/daily meetings where the agenda doesn't change, but the
content and contributors may (like a board meeting). The
better you can communicate expectations to contributors, the better the
meetings will go, and the better prepared the contributors should be.
- Don't invite people to be polite - only invite those who
are going to contribute to the result. If people are offended
that they weren't part of the decision, ask them if they had something
to contribute? Maybe you missed someone.
- If someone's contribution is one way only, communicate
this, and offer that they do not need to attend the entire meeting.
- In running the meetings - I could be more of a hard-ass
about people not being prepared. That is, not accept the
contribution from people who are not prepared. Shut them
down, rather than waste everyone's time rambling on to no obvious
conclusion. This sounds really harsh until you have 20
$100/hour contractors in a status meeting every freakin' day and your
status meeting costs $10k per week. Ouch! What
about senior managers? How much do those meetings cost.
I'm not there, so I don't know. It can't be cheap.
What about meetings that we attend? Since we cannot often
insist on the meeting caller following these guidelines, what can we
do? We can ask the meeting chair the same questions
we would ask ourselves above.
- Inquire about the purpose of the meeting. If
there is no clear purpose, this may prompt the caller to re-think the
need for a meeting.
- Ask for a meeting agenda. If we are asked to a
meeting with no agenda, or clear purpose, ask. If they can't provide
one, then ask why our presence is important. If they can't
answer that, then politely decline the invitation.
- Ask what if anything we will be asked to contribute to the
meeting. If we are not going to contribute, ask
why our presence is important. Again we can always
decline.
- If we are asked to contribute, ask how much time we will be
expected to share - what kind of handouts to bring.
- If our contribution time is short in comparison to the
meeting, and we are not an integral part of the decision making
process, we can ask to be excluded from portions of longer meetings
that do not concern us (like a congressional hearing).
- If someone who works for, with, near us is better suited to
contribute, we may want to recommend that they be invited
in our stead. Delegate meetings to people better
prepared.
- Show up for meetings ready to do business.
Have our handouts prepared, and published ahead of
the meeting if at all possible.
- When we contribute, stay on topic as much as possible.
Before you think I
am some meeting master, you must know that I am terribly
undisciplined about meetings, other than my team's daily
stand-up. Why, because the cost of time spent creeps up like
a productivity killing ninja, and my schedule gets booked with junk
meetings before I correctly prioritize my time. While I know
what to do, I don't practice with the right discipline.
Perhaps this will help me improve in this area.