Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
inShare
There is SO MUCH advice out there about how to run meetings, and most of it is just
useless.
It’s not that the advice is wrong, per se. It’s just not specific enough.
CONTENTS
Introduction
Background: The thinking behind the taxonomy
The 16 Types of Business Meetings
o Cadence Meetings
o Catalyst Meetings
o Meetings to Evaluate and Influence
Table: Summary of Types
Example: How Different Types of Meetings Work Together
Conclusion
For example, it’s not wrong to tell people they need an agenda with clear outcomes
listed for every topic. It just doesn’t apply to a lot of situations. A detailed agenda for
the one-on-one with my boss? For the sales demo? For our morning huddle? Yeah, I
don’t think so. For the board meeting or the requirements analysis meeting? Absolutely.
Mr. Jenkins has clearly struck a nerve. It’s the kind of pandering that drives clicks and
sells ads, which makes that a job well done for the Guardian. But it’s also nonsense.
There’s no proof that organizations benefit from meetings? You can only say something
like that when you’re speaking too generally for anyone to know what you’re talking
about. Because otherwise - did you hear that, sales teams? There’s no proof those
client meetings help your company. Go ahead and cancel them! Hospital workers, stop
wasting your time in those shift-change meetings! You should know what to do without
talking to each other so much - go heal people already! Boards? Board meetings are for
losers. Just use chat and email to manage all your governance duties.
When you get specific about the kind of meeting you’re talking about, the generic
“meetings waste time” or “you must have 5 people or less” statements become
ridiculous, and people who complain about meetings in general sound like childish
whingers.
This doesn’t mean that meetings in general work great and that there’s no problem to
solve here. It just means that there isn’t a singular meeting problem that has a simple
meeting solution.
At Lucid, we work to help our clients get meaningful business results from their
meetings, and to do this, we have to get specific. The coaching we provide for our
committee clients is not the same advice we give to leadership teams.
Mr. Jenkins correctly points out that when you invite 20 people to a meeting designed
for 5, it doesn’t work anymore. Well, duh. His conclusion is that meetings don’t work. A
more useful conclusion is that if you’re going to invite 20 people, you should run a
meeting designed to work for 20 people. That’s entirely doable, but it’s also a very
different meeting.
Which raises the question: what are the different kinds of meetings? If it isn’t useful to
provide guidelines for all meetings, is it at least possible to establish useful guidelines
for a certain type of meeting? Or do we really need to look at each and every single
meeting as if it was totally unique and special?
This question has driven much of our work over the past 10 years.
We found that meetings work together, and that looking at individual meetings in
isolation leads to misunderstandings. It’s like studying a single bee; the drone’s dance
doesn’t make a lot of sense unless you know that there are other bees watching.
Meetings are designed to beget action that is evaluated and built upon in subsequent
meetings, and the sequence and cadence at which these meetings occur drives the
momentum of that action. Looking only at a single meeting means you miss the clues
that lead to the honey.
We work with facilitators and experts to design agendas and guidebooks for running
specific meetings. We’ve seen where the structures look the same, and where they
differ. There are lots of specific ways to run a status meeting, but even though there's a
lot of variety between them, every status meeting still looks way more like every other
status meeting than it does like any strategic planning session. Mammals are more like
other mammals than any of them are like an insect.
And of course we work with clients and hear concerns about all those things that the
experts don’t talk about, like how to lead a decent meeting when the group thinks
meetings aren’t cool, or how to prepare in advance when your goal is to “wow”
everyone during the meeting. We know people worry about how to walk those fine lines
between inclusiveness and efficiency, and between appropriate framing and facilitation
on the one hand, and manipulation on the other. We hear how they experience specific
meetings in the context of getting real work done, and can see how priorities shift
between getting the content right and getting people connected.
To build our taxonomy, we started with a set of 6 types and a list of all the different
kinds of meetings we could think of, then tried to match them up.
This was frustrating. No matter which list we started with, within a few minutes we
always found an example that didn’t fit.
For example, Google highlights this list of the 6 Types of Meetings by MeetingSift as the
definitive list. It’s very similar to many of the other lists out there.
Whenever we found a meeting that didn’t fit, we set it aside and asked "why?" What is
it about that meeting which meant it should be treated differently than these others?
Meeting Intention
The intention behind a meeting is most often expressed as the meeting’s purpose and
desired outcomes. In other words, why do people run this kind of meeting? What is it
meant to create?
There are two major outcomes for any meeting: a human connection and a work
product. We found that many attempts to categorize meetings dealt only with the work
product, which often led to bad advice.
Our taxonomy attempts to look at both kinds of outcomes when describing the meeting
intention.
The Format
When we first started looking at meeting format, we used a standard breakdown of
“formal” and “informal” to help distinguish between the board meetings and the team
meetings, but we abandoned that pretty quickly because it didn’t hold up in practice.
In practice, we found that while boards have rules that they must follow by law, and
they do, this didn’t necessarily mean that the majority of the meeting followed any very
strict structure. Many board meetings actually include lots of free-form conversation,
which is then briefly formalized to address the legal requirements.
It turns out that formal and informal told us more about a participant’s perception of
social anxiety in a meeting than it did about the type or format of a meeting. I
experience stand-ups and interviews as informal, largely because I’m in charge and am
confident of my role in these meetings. I doubt everyone I interview considers it an
informal chat, though, and I imagine our stand-up may feel pretty uptight to someone
who wasn’t used to it.
Instead of formal and informal, we found that the strength of the governing rituals
and rules had a clearer impact on the meeting’s success. By this measure, the daily
stand-up is highly ritualistic, board meetings and brainstorming sessions abide by
governing rules but not rigidly so, and initial sales calls and team meetings have very
few prescribed boundaries.
This still didn’t quite explain all the variation we saw in meeting format, however. When
we looked at the project status update meeting, we realized it shared some
characteristics with the board meeting, but these project meetings aren’t governed by
rules and laws in the same way. And while the intention for project updates is always
the same—to share information about project work status and manage emerging
change—there’s a ton of variation in how people run project status updates. Some
teams are very formal and rigid, while others are nearly structure free. This means our
“governing rituals” criteria didn’t work here.
The format characteristic all project status update meetings do share, and that you’ll
also see with board meetings, is a dislike of surprises. No project manager wants to
show up to the weekly update and get surprised by how far off track the team is, or
how they’ve decided to take the project in some new direction. Board members hate
this too. For these meetings, surprises are bad bad bad!
Surprises are bad for project updates, but other meetings are held expressly
for the purpose of finding something new. The innovation meeting, the get-to-
know you meeting, the problem solving meeting all hope for serendipity. Going into
those meetings, people don’t know what they’ll get, but they try to run the meeting to
maximize their chances of something great showing up by the time they’re done.
So, when categorizing meetings based on the meeting format, we looked at both:
The question behind these criteria is: what kind of reasonable assumptions can we
make about how well these people will work together to achieve the desired goal?
Remember: every meeting has both a human connection outcome and a work outcome.
This has many significant design impacts. For example, in meetings with group
members that know each other already, you can spend less meeting time on building
connection. We don’t do introductions in the daily huddle; we assume the team handled
that outside the meeting.
In meetings where the work product is arguably far more important than the human
connection, it’s not always necessary for people to like one another or even remember
each others' names as long as the meeting gets them all to the desired goal efficiently.
A formal incident investigation meeting does not need the person under investigation to
know and like the people on the review board to achieve its goal.
By contrast, some meetings only go well after the team establishes mutual respect and
healthy working relationships. The design of these meetings must nurture and enhance
those relationships if they are to achieve the desired outcomes. Weekly team meetings
often fail because people run them like project status updates instead of team
meetings, focusing too heavily on content at the expense of connection, and their
teams are weaker for it.
After much slotting and wrangling, we found there were three ways our assumptions
about the people in the room influenced the meeting type.
CONTENT
A design workshop for creating a new logo will deal with different content than one for
developing a new country-sponsored health plan or one for creating a nuclear
submarine. At the human level, however, each of these design workshops needs to
accomplish the same thing by engaging the creative and collaborative genius of the
participants in generating innovative solutions. Similarly, project meetings in every field
look at time, progress, and budget. The content changes, but the core goals and format
do not.
GROUP SIZE
This one is like logistics. You absolutely have to change how you run a meeting with 20
people from how you led the same meeting with 5. But again, the goals, the sequence
of steps, the governing rituals - none of that changes. In general, smaller meetings are
easier to run and more successful on a day-to-day basis. But if you legitimately need 20
people involved in that decision, and sometimes you do, that is an issue of scale rather
than kind.
OPERATING CONTEXT
What comes before the meeting and what’s happening in the larger ecosystem can
have a huge impact on how a team approaches a meeting. A decision-making meeting
held in times of abundance feels radically different than one you run to try and figure
out how to save a sinking ship. Even so, the underlying principles for sound decision
making remain the same. Some situations absolutely make it way harder to succeed,
but they don’t, in our opinion, make it a fundamentally different kind of meeting.
Now, given that extended lead up, what types did we end up with?
As we do the work of our organizations, we learn. The plans we made on day one may
work out the way we expected, but maybe not. New stuff comes up and before too
long it becomes obvious that we need to adjust course.
All of these meetings involve an established group of people, with perhaps the
occasional guest. Most happen at regular and predictable intervals, making up the
strategic and operational cadence of the organization.
These meetings all follow a regularized pattern; each meeting works basically like the
last one and teams know what to expect. Because the participants and the format are
all known, these meetings often require less up-front planning and less specialized
facilitation expertise to succeed.
Meeting Format
Team cadence meetings follow a regular pattern or standard agenda, which can be very
ritualistic. Team meetings should surface new information and challenges, but big
surprises are not welcome here. (Unless they’re super awesome!) These meetings are
about keeping an established team personally connected and moving towards a
common goal, and not about inspiring major change.
PROGRESS CHECKS
Intention
Meeting Format
Project updates follow a regular pattern. Some are very strict, others less so; this varies
by the team and the kind of work they do. Surprises are entirely unwelcome. Any major
surprise will cause a meeting failure and derail the planned agenda.
ONE-ON-ONES
Intention
Meeting Format
One-on-ones are the loosey goosiest meetings in this set. Experienced and dedicated
leaders will develop an approach to one-on-ones that they use often, but the intimate
nature of these meetings defies rigid structure. People tend not to enjoy surprises in
one-on-ones, but they infinitely prefer to learn surprising news in these meetings rather
than in a team or governance cadence meeting. If you’re going to quit or fly to the
moon or you’ve just invented the cure to aging, you’re way better off telling your
manager privately before you share that with the board.
Meeting Format
Action reviews are highly ritualistic; these are the kind of meetings that inspire the use
of the word “ritual”. The action review is a tool for continuous learning; the more
frequently these are run and the tighter the team gets, the faster they learn and
improve. Teams can and will change how they run these meetings over time based on
what they’ve learned, and this avid pursuit of change for the better is itself part of the
ritual. Action reviews take surprise in stride. The whole point is to learn and then refine
future action, so while huge surprises may cause chagrin, they are embraced as lessons
and used accordingly.
Board Meetings
Quarterly Strategic Reviews
QBR (a quarterly review between a vendor and client)
Expected Participation Profile
The teams involved in governance meetings are known in advance, but don’t
necessarily work together often. Nor do they need to; these aren’t the kind of meetings
where everyone has to be pals to get good results. These meetings are led by a chair or
official company representative, and participation is structured. This means that while
there are often times for free conversation during a governance meeting, much of the
participation falls into prescribed patterns. These are often the kind of meetings that
warrant nicer shoes.
Meeting Format
Governance cadence meetings are highly structured. When run professionally, there is
always an agenda, it is always shared in advance, and minutes get recorded.
Governance meetings are NOT the time for surprises. In fact, best practice for
important board meetings includes making sure everyone coming to that meeting gets
a personal briefing in advance (see Investigative or One-on-Ones) to ensure no one is
surprised in the meeting. A surprise in a governance cadence meeting means someone
screwed up.
New ideas, new plans, projects to start, problems to solve and decisions to make—
these meetings change an organization’s work.
These meetings are all scheduled as needed, and include the people the organizers feel
to be best suited for achieving the meeting goals. They succeed when following a
thoughtful meeting design and regularly fail when people “wing it”.
Because these meetings are scheduled as needed with whomever is needed, there is a
lot more variation in format between meetings. This is the realm of participatory
engagement, decision and sense-making activities, and when the group gets larger,
trained facilitation.
IDEA GENERATION
Intention
Meeting Format
These meetings start with the presentation of a central premise or challenge, then jump
into some form of idea generation. There are loads of idea generation techniques, all of
which involve a way for participants to respond to a central challenge with as many
individual ideas as possible. Unlike workshops or problem solving meetings, the group
may not attempt to coalesce or refine their ideas in the meeting. Here, idea volume
matters more than anything else. Organizations run these meetings when they aren’t
sure what to do yet; the whole meeting is an entreaty to serendipity. As such, there are
few governing principles beyond the rule to never interfere with anyone else’s
enthusiasm.
Back to the list of types ⇧
PLANNING MEETINGS
Intention
Create plans
Secure commitment to implementing the plans
Examples
Project Planning
Campaign Planning (Marketing)
Product Roadmap Planning
and so on. Every group that makes things has a planning meeting.
Expected Participation Profile
Planning meetings often involve an existing team, but also involve other people as
needed. Depending on the size and scope of the plans under development, these
meetings are led by the project owner or by an outside facilitator. Participants are
expected to actively collaborate on the work product. They may or may not have
established relationships; if not, some time needs to be spent helping people get to
know each other and understand what each of them can contribute. That said, these
meetings are about getting a job done, so relationships don’t get central focus.
Meeting Format
Planning meetings vary depending on the kind of plan they’re creating, but generally
start with an explanation of the overall goal, an analysis of the current situation, and
then work through planning details. Planning meetings end with a review and
confirmation of the plan created. Planning meetings are not governed by rules nor do
they follow specific rituals; the meeting format is dictated more by the planning format
than anything else. Because planning meetings happen very early in an endeavor’s life
cycle, successful meetings design for serendipity. Anything you can learn during this
meeting that makes the plan better is a good thing!
WORKSHOPS
Intention
Group formation
Commitment and clarity on execution
One or more tangible results; real work product comes out of workshops
Examples
Because they attempt to achieve so much more than other meetings, workshops take
longer to run and way longer to plan and set up. Most workshops expect participants to
actively engage and collaborate in the creation of a tangible shared result, and a lot of
effort goes into planning very structured ways to ensure that engagement. When it
comes to business meetings, these are also often as close to a working party as it gets.
Meeting Format
Smaller kickoffs may follow a simple pattern and be held in the team’s regular meeting
space, but many workshops take place in a special location; somewhere off site,
outside, or otherwise distinct from the normal work environment. All these meetings
start with introductions and level-setting of some kind: a group exercise, a review of the
project goals, and perhaps a motivational speech from the sponsor. Then, the team
engages in a series of exercises or activities in pursuit of the work product. Since these
meetings are long, coffee and cookies may be expected. Workshops conclude with a
review of the work product, and often a reflective exercise. That said, while the basic
pattern for a workshop is fairly standard, these are bespoke meetings that do not
adhere to any particular rituals. The people who plan and facilitate the meeting work
hard to create opportunities for serendipity; they want the team to discover things
about each other and the work that inspire and engage them.
PROBLEM SOLVING
Intention
Incident Response
Strategic Issue Resolution
Major Project Change Resolution
Expected Participation Profile
These meetings involve anyone who may have information that helps the group find a
solution and anyone who will need to implement the solution. Depending on the
urgency of the situation, the meeting will be led by the person in charge (the
responsible leader) or a facilitator. Everyone present is expected to collaborate actively,
answering all questions and diligently offering assistance. Tight working relationships
can help these meetings go more easily, and participants that establish trust can put
more energy into finding solutions since they worry less about blame and personal
repercussions. That said, these meetings need the participation of the people with the
best expertise, and these people may not know each other well. When this happens,
the meeting leader should put extra effort into creating safety in the group if they want
everyone’s best effort.
Meeting Format
Problem solving meetings begin with a situation analysis (what happened, what
resources do we have), then a review of options. After the team discusses and selects
an option, they create an action plan. We’ve all seen the shortest version of this
meeting in movies, when the police gather outside of the building full of hostages and
collaborate to create their plan. Problem solving meetings follow this basic structure,
which can be heavily ritualized in first responder and other teams devoted to quickly
solving problems. These strict governing procedures get looser when problems aren’t so
urgent, but the basic pattern remains.
In a problem solving meeting, the ugly surprise already happened. Now the team
welcomes serendipity, hoping a brilliant solution will emerge.
DECISION MAKING
Intention
A documented decision
Commitment to act on that decision
Examples
Meeting Format
Decision making meetings involve the consideration of options and the selection of a
final option. Unlike problem solving meetings that include a search for good options, all
that work to figure out the possible options happens before the decision making
meeting. In many cases, these meetings are largely a formality intended to finalize and
secure commitment to a decision that’s already been made. Ritual is high, and surprises
unwelcome. In other situations, the group is weighing multiple options and seeking to
make a selection in the meeting. There still shouldn’t be any big surprises, but there’s a
whole lot more flexibility. For example, corporate leadership teams run decision-making
meetings when faced with unexpected strategic challenges. Many of these teams revert
to a structure-free conversational meeting approach; just “talking it out” until they
reach a decision. Unfortunately for them, teams make the best decisions when their
meetings follow a formal decision-making methodology.
These meetings are all designed to transfer information and intention from one person
or group to another. They are scheduled by the person who wants something with the
people they want to influence or get something from.
At the surface, that sounds Machiavellian, but the intention here is rarely nefarious.
Instead, these meetings often indicate a genuine interest in learning, sharing, and
finding ways to come together for mutual benefit.
Because each of these meetings involves some form of social evaluation, the format
and rituals have more to do with etiquette than regulations or work product, although
this is not always the case.
Job Interviews
Project Discovery Meetings
Incident Investigations
Sense-Making Sessions
Market Research Panels
Expected Participant Profile
These meetings are led by an interviewer or facilitator. Participants include the people
being interviewed and sometimes a set of observers. Engagement in interviews may
feel conversational, but it always follows a clear question-response structure. Most
interviewers work to develop a rapport with the people they’re interviewing, since
people often share more freely with people they perceive as friendly and trustworthy.
That said, many information gathering meetings work fine without rapport, because the
person sharing information is expecting to benefit from it in the future. For example, if
a doctor asks a patient to describe his symptoms, the patient does so willingly because
he expects the doctor will use that information to help him feel better.
Meeting Format
Many interviews are governed by rules regarding privacy, non-disclosure, and
discretion. These formalities may be addressed at the beginning or end of the session.
Otherwise, there are no strong patterns for an information gathering session. Instead,
people regularly working in these meetings focus on asking better questions. Like idea
generation meetings, information gathering meetings delight in serendipity. Unlike idea
generation meetings, however, the goal is not to invent new solutions, but rather to
uncover existing facts and perspectives.
A new agreement
Commitment to further the relationship
Examples
Meeting Format
The format for these meetings is entirely dependent on the situation. Formal treaty
negotiations between countries follow a very structured and ritualistic format.
Negotiations between individual leaders, however, may be hashed out on the golf
course. These meetings are a dance, so while surprises may not be welcome, they are
expected.
INTRODUCTIONS
Intention
Meeting Format
There are no strict rules for meetings of this type as a whole, but that doesn’t make
them ad-hoc informal events. On the contrary, sales teams, company founders, and
young professionals spend many long hours working to "hone their pitch”. They hope
this careful preparation will reduce the influence of luck and the chances of an unhappy
surprise. The flow of the conversation will vary depending on the situation. These
meeting can go long, get cut short, and quickly veer into tangents. It’s up to the person
who asked for the meeting to ensure the conversation ends with a clear next step.
Meeting Format
Most of these meetings begin with mingling and light conversation. Then, the
organizers will call for the group’s attention and begin the prepared part of the meeting.
This could follow a traditional agenda, as they do in a Toastmaster’s meeting, or it may
include a group exercise or a presentation by an invited speaker. There’s time for
questions, and then more time at the end to resume the casual conversations begun at
the meeting start. People in attendance are there to learn about the topic, but also to
make connections with others that create opportunities. Many hope for serendipity.
TRAINING SESSIONS
Intention
Meeting Format
Training session formats vary widely. In the simplest form, the session involves the
trainer telling participants what they believe they need to learn, and then participants
ask questions. Instructional designers and training professionals can make training
sessions way more engaging than that.
BROADCAST MEETINGS
Intention
Meeting Format
Broadcast meetings start and end on time. They begin with brief introductions which
are followed by the presentation. Questions may be answered periodically, or held until
the last few minutes. Because these meetings include announcements or information
intended to inform later action, participants often receive follow-up communication: a
copy of the slides, a special offer or invitation, or in the case of an all-hands meeting, a
follow-up meeting with the manager to talk about how the big announcement impacts
their team. The people leading a broadcast meeting do not expect and do not welcome
surprises. The people participating often don't know what to expect.
Frankly, I hesitated to include broadcast meetings and training as types, since both
encompasses such a broad range of experiences. Also, these meetings aren’t
collaborative nor generative in the way that other meetings are; they don’t create new
outcomes for everyone involved. They stretch the definition of what I’d consider a
meeting.
That said, I have heard people call broadcasts and training sessions “meetings” on
multiple occasions. The all-staff meeting is often just announcements, but people call it
a meeting. Project folks will schedule a “meeting to go over the new system” with a
client, and that’s basically a lightweight training session.
a Mentorship Meeting
One or more tangible results; real work product Structured collaborative engagement
comes out of workshops
Relationship quality less important
Examples:
Bespoke meeting design
Project, Program and Product Kickoffs Highly planned and organized
Team Chartering Serendipity a goal
Design Workshops
Meeting Types Intention Participation and Format
Idea Generation Create a whole bunch of ideas Examples: Participants assembled to fit need
Information To learn things that you can use to inform later Participants represent different interes
Gathering action Examples:
Led by an interviewer
Job Interviews Conversational engagement
Project Discovery Meetings Relationship quality less import to suc
Incident Investigations Governing rules for privacy, informati
Market Research Panels Question-Answer format
Serendipity welcome
Broadcasts To share information that inspires (or prevents) Participants invited based on role or in
action Examples:
Led by the broadcaster
the All-Hands Meeting Little to no participation expected
Webinars Relationship quality unimportant
Meeting Types Intention Participation and Format
Surprises unwelcome
Now that you’ve seen the details, download this table as a spreadsheet.
Why a spreadsheet?
Since all models are wrong the scientist cannot obtain a "correct" one by
excessive elaboration. On the contrary following William of Occam he
should seek an economical description of natural phenomena. Just as
the ability to devise simple but evocative models is the signature of the
great scientist so overelaboration and overparameterization is often the
mark of mediocrity.
George Box in 1976 Journal of the American Statistical Association
Or, stated more economically, "All models are wrong, but some are useful." We've
tried to hit a mark that's useful in a way that simpler lists were not. We invite your
feedback to tell us how we did.
The 17th Type: BIG Meetings and Conferences
Just when you think you’ve really broadened your horizons and been very thoroughly
inclusive, you meet someone who sets you straight. I recently had the pleasure of
meeting Maarten Vanneste, who is also a dedicated advocate for meeting design
and the meeting design profession. It turns out that while we are using the same
words, Maarten works in a very different world where a “meeting” might be a multi-day
conference with dozens of sessions and a highly paid keynote speaker or 10. In that
world, meeting planners handle logistics, room reservations, lighting requirements,
branding, promotions… a wealth of detail that far exceeds anything we might worry
about for even the most involved strategic planning workshop.
Because it’s another example of how using a generic word like “meeting” leads to
bad assumptions. In case it isn’t clear, at Lucid when we talk about meetings and
meeting design, we’re talking about the 16 types of day-to-day business meetings listed
above. Professional meeting planning is a whole different kettle of fish.
This is the story of two companies: ACME, makers of awesome products, and ABC Corp,
a company that needs what ACME makes, and all the people working in these two
companies that make their business flow.
Peter tells Jill and the sales team about the upcoming demo with Sam at ABC.
Peter, Jill and Henri prepare before the demo with Sam at ABC.
Peter and Henri give a demo to Sam and Ellen. Ellen is impressed and asks for a quote.
Jill tells the CEO and the rest of the leadership team about the big ABC deal her sales team is working
so everyone can prepare.
Peter goes over all the requests in his meeting with Ellen to make sure he
understands them, but he’s in no position to authorize those changes. After the
meeting, he takes the requests back to Jill.
Peter discusses the contract with Ellen. Ellen wants a better contract.
The leadership team meets to decide how to respond to Ellen's contract demands. And they do!
Several more negotiation meetings and a security review later, and the deal is
signed!
Peter introduces Sam and Ellen to the ACME team: Gary, Henri, and Esme.
Jill, Peter and the sales review the lessons they learned closing the ABC deal.
Sam escorts Gary, Henri, and Esme through a day of discovery meetings at ABC Corp.
Gary, Henri, and Esme meet with the implementation team members to draft a project plan.
Next, both teams dig into the details. They go over the project plan ACME
created and suggest changes. They establish performance goals for how they
expect to use the product, making it clear what a successful implementation will
look like. They talk about how they’ll communicate during the project and
schedule a series of project update meetings. They take breaks and get to know
each other, and share cookies. Then they get serious and talk about what might
go wrong, and outline what they can do now to increase their odds of success.
At the end, Ellen rejoins them and the group shares their updated project plan
with her. They explain changes they made and concerns they still have, and ask
a few questions. Finally, they go over exactly who does what next, and set clear
expectations about how and when everyone will see progress. With the kickoff
complete, they all adjourn to the local pub to relax and continue getting
acquainted.
Esme and Ellen lead team members from both companies through the project kickoff
Meeting 14: The ACME All Projects Update (Type: Progress Check)
Work is underway, and once per week Gary and the other project managers
meet with the implementation team to review progress. Since the
implementation team works on several projects at once, a problem with one
project can impact progress across several others. To keep these meetings
focused and efficient, and to help everyone visualize how all the pieces interact,
the group meets in a room with a full wall devoted to charting project activity.
People move tasks around on the wall to show progress, and mark new risks or
issues with red dots. In less than 30 minutes, the group creates an updated
status dashboard that anyone in the company can now review when they walk
by.
Happily for Gary, the ABC project is right on schedule. For now.
Gary, the other ACME PMs, and the ACME implementation team discuss project progress every week.
Sam tells Gary there's been a major shake-up at ABC, and the project is on hold. Oh no! What will
Gary do?
Belinda can’t answer those questions, but she helps Gary relax and promises to
get a team together who can give him the guidance he needs.
Gary meets one-on-one with his boss Belinda, and they make a plan.
Meeting 17: What do we do with the ABC project? (Type: Problem Solving)
Belinda, Gary, and several people from the leadership team meet to figure out
how to handle this upset to the ABC project. A representative of the finance
team talks about how a major delay will impact the company, and the
implementation lead offers several suggestions for how they might rearrange the
schedule and team members to handle a delay. While no one wants to be
whipped around by these problems that aren’t their fault, the CEO is very clear
that maintaining a positive relationship with the ABC people (whoever that turns
out to be) is the highest priority. ACME wants this to be a profitable long-term
relationship, so they can’t let a hiccup in the launch derail that. By the meeting’s
end, they decide to continue work, completing everything they can do without
ABC’s help. Then, if the ABC situation doesn’t resolve within the next two weeks,
they’ll put a hold on the project. Gary leaves with clear instructions, and
everyone understands how they’ll handle the situation in their departments.
Belinda, Gary, and the leadership team meet find a solution to the problems with the ABC project.
When Gary, Esme, and Sam meet, they each share their constraints and goals,
then focus on those places where they seem to be at an impasse. 90 minutes of
back and forth, and they reach a deal. The project deadline will move out 2
weeks because of the delay at ABC, but in recompense for the missed deadline,
ACME will provide 4 additional training sessions at no charge for all the people at
ABC that were just reassigned and need to be brought up to speed. It’s not
perfect, but it works and the project gets back on track.
Esme and Gary meet with Sam to negotiate how they'll finish the project.
ACME trainers teach the ABC team how to use the product.
Gary, Esme and the ACME team, along with Sam and the ABC team, meet with
the ABC leadership group. They present their progress, sharing slides with
graphs of tasks complete and milestones met. The leadership team asks
questions along the way, making sure they understand the implications of the
upcoming product launch. When everyone is satisfied, they turn to the CEO who
is the decision maker in this meeting.
Gary, Esme, Sam and their teams ask the new ABC CEO to approve the project. She does!
Everyone agrees that, for the most part, this was a successful project. The client
is happy, the product works well, and they made money. Still, there are lessons
to learn. Peter and Henri realize that they saw signs that the situation at ABC
wasn’t stable in those first few conversations, but they were so eager to win the
client that they dismissed them. In the future, they’ll know to pay attention more
closely. Gary and the implementation team discovered ways they could keep the
project running even when the client isn’t responding, and they’ll build that into
their next project plan. At the end of the meeting, the group walks away with a
dozen key lessons and ideas for experiments they can try to make future
projects even better.
The ACME team meets to discuss what they learned from the ABC project.
The ACME CEO talks about the ABC project with the ACME Board, and gets approval to pursue a new
market.
Esme reviews how the product is working out for the ABC team with Sam in the Quarterly Business
Review.
This case study becomes a central piece of content in the new marketing
campaign approved earlier by ACME’s board.
The ACME marketing team interviews Sam about his experience with their products for a case study.
Sam tells Esme she'll need to renew the contract with the new head of procurement. Esme gets ready.
In Summary
We’ve talked about why it’s important to get specific about the kind of meeting you’re
in, and then we looked at our taxonomy for classifying those meetings. Then, we
explored how different types of meetings all work together to keep people connected
and move work forward in the story of ACME and ABC.
In many ways, the story of Gary and Sam and Esme and the gang is just a story of
people doing their jobs. A lot of people work on projects that run like the one described
here. Sometimes everything works fine, other times they freak out; nothing unusual
there. What you may not have paid much attention to before, and what the story works
to highlight, is how often what happens on that journey is determined by the outcome
of a meeting. The other thing we can see is that, while those guys on the
implementation team may have thought the few meetings they attended were a waste
of time, their contributions during meetings that helped make the ABC project a success
ended up having a major impact on the direction of the company. When we show up
and participate in meetings, we connect with people who will then go on to different
types of meetings with other people, connecting the dots across our organization and
beyond.
With that in mind, let’s close by revisiting Simon Jenkins’ gripping headline:
Crushing morale, killing productivity – why do offices put up with
meetings?
There’s no proof that organisations benefit from the endless cycle of
these charades, but they can’t stop it. We’re addicted.
Is it possible to run meetings that crush morale and kill productivity? Yes, of course it
is. That doesn’t mean, however, that meetings are simply a useless addiction we can’t
kick.
It means that some people are running the wrong kind of meetings, and others are
running the right meetings in the wrong way. Not everyone does everything well. Have
you ever eaten a sandwich from a vending machine? If so, you know that people are
capable of producing all kinds of crap that does not reflect well–neither on them nor on
the larger body of work their offering represents.
In the working world, meetings are where the action is. Run the right meeting well, and
you can engage people in meaningful work and drive productivity.
Seems like a pretty nice benefit to me, and hopefully this taxonomy helps us all get
there.