The Surprising Science of Meetings

by Steven G Rogelberg

  4. Although short meetings or huddles can be very effective, it is important to keep two things in mind: (1) certain emergent topics may need their own dedicated meeting time outside the huddle context, and (2) always start and end these quick meetings on time to maximize their effectiveness and attendees’ satisfaction.

  Chapter 5

  AGENDAS ARE A HOLLOW CRUTCH

  Throughout history, you can find examples of a traveling “merchant” coming into town selling ointments, pills, elixirs, and objects promising quick fixes to problems concerning health, love, wealth, enemies, or even bad bosses. Sales were good for these merchants. Customers are reliably drawn to quick fixes to complicated problems. After all, quick fixes do not require deep thought, careful analysis, or nuance, nor do they require hard work. The other hallmark of a quick fix is the rarity of it actually working. The volumes of books and articles that claim they will help you improve your organization’s meetings typically have one key idea in common—they espouse the “must do” advice of having an agenda and claim this as a cure-all. Unfortunately, relying on a meeting agenda is a quick fix, and not one that on its own will make a difference.

  It is hard to find a business book on meetings that does not start with the importance of creating a meeting agenda. However, the research on agendas is far from enthusiastic. Two studies I published early in my career examined the best ways to design meetings. In both studies, a leader’s decision to have an agenda was a very minor predictor of attendees’ perceptions of meeting effectiveness. More pessimistically, other researchers found no positive relationship between attendees’ evaluation of meeting quality and having a written agenda. Taken together, the conclusion is that agendas in and of themselves do little to improve meetings. Furthermore, it is often the case that agendas are recycled from meeting to meeting. In 2003, Marakon Associates and The Economist Intelligence Unit studied top management teams across 197 companies worldwide. These were large companies with sales of at least $500 million. They reported that in half of the companies they studied, the agendas from top management teams were either exactly the same from meeting to meeting or they were created in an ad hoc, spontaneous fashion. In reflecting on my own client work, I have seen so many instances where the only thing changing agenda-wise from meeting to meeting in a department was the date in the upper left corner.

  In the rest of this chapter I will discuss ways to avoid the generic-agenda pitfall. I will cover the process of constructing an agenda from a number of strategic vantage points, including implementing a goals and decisions focus, how to order items, how to engage others in the process, the notion of directly responsible individuals, and other key topics in agenda creation. Ultimately, this chapter is about moving beyond just having an agenda and instead creating an agenda that truly can be transformative—an agenda heeding the sage advice of Ben Franklin, “by failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”

  Planning a Wedding Meeting

  An agenda is an event plan. When planning an event, we think carefully about the details, the flow, the experience, and the approach. The same mindset and process should occur when planning a meeting. In fact, the notion of thinking of a meeting as an event is really not a stretch. It is not unusual for a meeting to cost between $1,000 and $3,000 in attendee time and salaries, which many would likely say is a fairly expensive event warranting careful planning. Related to this, as a meeting leader, you are in the unique position of being a steward of others’ time and experience. We would never go to a client meeting unprepared, nor would we conduct a workshop for others without planning; the same focus should be brought to a meeting. Prepare for an internal meeting like you would prepare a client event, even for just a few minutes. This starts with thinking through what truly needs to be accomplished for the meeting to be successful.

  Meetings should be called to address issues that require genuine interaction among and engagement with attendees. While meetings can certainly have an “update” component, which is only natural, this should be a small part of the meeting, relatively speaking. If the topic does not require interaction, another communication medium would likely be more efficient (e.g., a memo, webinar).

  Agenda Construction: What Should Be Included in the Meeting?

  The following are some examples of topics particularly well suited for a meeting; these are the types of interaction-requiring topics you would like to see on an agenda:

  • Identification of key risks or challenges the unit is facing or will be facing

  • Identification and discussion of key metrics to assess progress

  • Evaluation of key processes or changes made

  • Discussion of what is going well and not so well—areas of improvement

  • Dissemination and interpretation of key information or policy changes

  • Calls to action and planning or strategy activities

  • Solving important problems and making collective decisions

  • After action, reflection and discussion of key learnings

  • Discussion and celebration of victories and individual and collective excellence

  • Short-range and long-range forecasting

  • Identification and discussion of new opportunities

  • Dialogue around coordination of efforts

  • Budgetary planning, issues, and adjustments

  • Key talent issues, both positive and negative

  • Presenting a new product or idea and getting feedback

  In addition to this list, ideas for the agenda should also bubble up from the attendees or team members themselves. After all, a meeting is a shared experience, and it seems only appropriate to allow all parties to have some level of input. Andy Grove, the former CEO of Intel, whom I mentioned in Chapter 3, once said, “The most important criterion governing matters to be talked about is that they be issues that preoccupy and nag the subordinate.” Research strongly supports the notion of “voice” in work-related activities. That is, when employees are encouraged to share their thoughts and ideas in a genuine manner and those ideas are truly heard, they tend to feel a greater sense of commitment to and identification with the team and the organization. This translates into a meeting setting in the form of an engaged attendee, one who is fully plugged into the meeting itself. By adding employee input to the meeting agenda, you are increasing the chances of hitting topics of critical importance to all who are present. This all can be executed simply by sending an email three to five days before the meeting asking for topics to include on the agenda (I sometimes recommend having attendees include a reason why this agenda item should be included). While asking for your team’s input, it is important to keep in mind that you are ultimately in charge of the meeting. What employees propose should certainly be considered and taken seriously. However, if you deem the suggestion not to be a good agenda item for the upcoming meeting, you should either (1) address the issue with the employee or subset of employees outside the meeting or (2) move it to a future meeting. The only thing you should not do is pretend you never received the suggestion; some form of closing the loop is needed.

  After identifying the potential topics and goals of the meeting (emerging both from self-reflection and from others’ input), as the meeting leader you need to carefully reflect on the importance of the goals and whether each is adding true value—value beyond opportunity costs (i.e., time that could be spent elsewhere). Drop content that does not make the cut. Also, drop content if the goal is only relevant to a small subset of attendees; in this case, it is best pursued in a different context.

  Agenda Construction: Flow Matters

  The next step in agenda creation involves the critical task of ordering the topics, which is essential to the success of the meeting. A nice study on agenda order was conducted by psychology professors Glen Littlepage and Julie Poole from Middle Tennessee State University in the early 1990s. These professors conducted an experiment involving twenty-four meetings, each with three to five attendees. Each m
eeting group was given an agenda and asked to conduct its meeting. The researchers were able to track time spent on various agenda items, with each agenda item differing in difficulty and importance. Most interestingly, they also manipulated the order of agenda items. Agendas included items such as the selection of a temporary secretary and the purchase of six hundred computers for the organization. To highlight a few key findings, the researchers found that weighty items did not always garner more time; most importantly, the items early in the agenda received a disproportionate amount of time and attention. The bottom line: order clearly matters. Adopting a strategy where agenda items are simply listed in the order received (e.g., first in, first on), or without critical thought, is highly counterproductive.

  Given these findings, first and foremost, I recommend ranking your prospective meeting goals (both those from you and those from your employees) on the basis of strategic importance. You need to have a good sense of what you feel is essential to cover, versus what is just nice to cover. With that said, issues affecting the here and now should not be automatically privileged over issues that have a longer time horizon. It is critical that meetings not be fully focused on putting out fires and solving immediate problems but instead also contain some more proactive, longer-term items.

  Now that you have this information at hand, you can start making decisions leveraging the following rules of thumb. First, it might be the case in looking at your agenda items that certain items should be addressed in close proximity to one another. By doing so, your agenda will tell a better “story.” Second, if all else is generally equal, I like the idea of prioritizing employee-generated agenda items. This sends a strong message around voice, inclusion, and shared ownership. Third, although meetings should always start on time and all items on the agenda should be important, the very first part of the meeting can contain some “warm-up” types of items, thus serving as a little buffer if individuals are late and, more importantly, as a means to build momentum (e.g., sharing quick announcements, sharing quick updates from the last meeting). However, no later than 10–15 percent into the meeting time should the most important, meaty, and critical agenda items be broached. This not only ensures coverage of these topics but also gets attendees hooked early and engaged in the meeting. I agree with author Patrick Lencioni, who wrote in his book Death by Meetings, “Leaders of meetings need to do the same by putting the right issues—often the most controversial ones—on the table at the beginning of their meetings. By demanding that their people wrestle with those issues until resolution has been achieved, they can create genuine, compelling drama, and prevent their audiences from checking out.”

  The points just made will help greatly in crafting your agenda “story.” It is also important to note that no matter what story agenda path you take, it should always end in a similar way—closing with a few-minutes-long wrap-up to cover meeting takeaways, clarify assignments, and note some items that will be put on the agenda for next time. I also recommend that you sometimes end the meeting with a Q&A session. This is basically just an “open swim” to promote good communication in the team. These sessions can include questions that employees have about topics covered in the meeting or topics not covered in the meeting. To avoid having an awkward silence, some leaders establish the number of questions to be asked, thus ensuring that the time is used (e.g., “before we end the meeting I would like to answer five questions that folks have”).

  This text lays out the key steps and decision points in building a quality agenda. However, as I mentioned earlier in this chapter, an agenda alone is not a cure-all. We’ve all sat through meetings where carefully built agendas were ignored. The next step involves the use of the agenda in the meeting. Before you go live with your agenda, there are two things you must consider: the first is whether you want to assign times to agenda items, and the second pertains to whether you want to assign discussion or responsibility leaders for agenda items. Let me discuss each of these next.

  To Time or Not to Time?

  Should time allotments be assigned to agenda items? It’s complicated. First, we know from goal-setting research that time allocated to agenda items should serve to drive action, provide a sense of focus, and promote completion. However, research generally indicates that too much structure can serve to derail creativity, enjoyment, and flexibility. Furthermore, recall from our discussion of Parkinson’s law that we tend to unconsciously and consciously match our efforts to allocated time. Thus, discussion will be influenced by the allotment. This could be positive or negative depending on whether the time allocated does justice to the agenda item in question. The primary concern is that if there is a mismatch, the quality of the discussion around the agenda item will be sacrificed.

  One response to this concern is an obvious one: the meeting leader can alter allotments in real time, based on the discussion at hand. Although this sounds like a simple fix, we’ve already noted how seldom “quick fixes” are true solutions. Real-time adjustments are, in reality, a tricky solution to execute, as (1) in the moment, it can be hard to recognize the need for an adjustment, especially as we are biased by our own perspective; and (2) doing this creates a precedent and potentially a norm of not honoring future timed agenda items—in essence, defeating the purpose of setting time allotments. Taken together, the decision to use a timed agenda is indeed complicated.

  Following are my personal rules of thumb for determining whether a leader should use timed agenda items. Note that my preference is to think of a timed agenda as a tool one can leverage occasionally, some of the time, all of the time, or never. If you answer “yes” to one or more of the following questions, a timed agenda is worth considering.

  • Do attendees tend to get caught up and dwell on minutia?

  • Do attendees tend to veer off course and into tangents?

  • Are you noticing that your meetings are highly routine and do you think trying something new might spice things up (this assumes that timed agendas are not something currently in place)?

  • Have you used timed agendas in the past with these attendees and did it work well?

  • Are you hoping to integrate guest attendees at one or more points in the meeting where they are needed but don’t want to hold them captive for the entire meeting? Timed agendas are an effective and efficient way to do this. For example, certain individuals can arrive and leave at set times corresponding to the agenda timing. I will flesh this out more in Chapter 6 when discussing the management of meeting size.

  • Are there certain topics on the agenda that you want to be sure get the deep attention they need?

  If you decide to take the timed agenda path, think carefully about what time to assign to each item—clearly time should be allocated by item importance. That said, anticipating time needs for an agenda item is still tricky, as it is hard to anticipate questions, different points of view, and conflict. I always encourage leaders to share draft item times with another meeting attendee before finalizing the agenda; the extra feedback is helpful in getting it right. Finally, if you do proceed with timed items, don’t forget to gather feedback periodically to assess whether the overall use of the technique is working and whether your time allotments have been appropriate.

  Sharing Meeting Responsibilities and Assigning Agenda Item Owners

  Although meeting leaders are ultimately in charge of the meeting experience, they have the ability to share leadership in a strategic manner. One way of doing this is to have certain agenda items assigned to “owners.” These owners facilitate the discussion around the agenda item and, in many cases, are in charge of the post-meeting actions related to it. The research literature shows that when you clearly and publicly attach a name to a task, you foster accountability. This, in turn, increases follow-through on what was decided at the meeting (an important piece of ultimate meeting success). This type of practice is embraced by a number of organizations. Perhaps most notably, it has become a standard meeting practice for Apple. Apple initiated the c
oncept of a “DRI”—a directly responsible individual. A DRI is assigned to agenda items for all to see. Employees expect to see a DRI next to an agenda item, and everyone knows that the DRI will be driving action. In addition to this utilitarian purpose, a DRI serves a number of other purposes, including (1) getting more people involved in the meeting, (2) providing a nice opportunity for skill development in leading meetings, and (3) making the meeting more stimulating for other attendees as more voices are incorporated. Note that it may be the case that the DRI is identified not prior to discussion of the agenda but at the meeting itself, post-discussion. Regardless, the key is to have a DRI.

  Matching a Process with Agenda Item

  The final step in agenda creation that is so commonly ignored is thinking about processes to use to address the various agenda items in play. Stated differently, planning a meeting is knowing not only what you want to cover but also how you want to go about doing it. This book, especially Chapter 9, is chock-full of various tools and techniques to consider when addressing various agenda items. Look for opportunities to leverage them in a manner that is helpful. Consider the people, the tasks, the history, and the potential pitfalls when picking the right tool for the job. Meeting leaders are uniquely positioned to do this activity, given their big-picture focus and their key role in ensuring there is a great return on the meeting-time investment.

  Putting the Pieces Together

  Although meeting agendas come in many different forms and one size does not fit all, in the outline that follows I put this chapter’s suggestions together and share an example of an excellent meeting agenda: