Forums

Hello, Mark and Mike,

I have a question about the organisation of the weekly staff meeting.

In his book dead by meeting Patrick Lencioni propose to remplace the weekly staff meeting by an weekly tactical.

He argues that there is no need to have a agenda.

He argues that each participant must present his work in one minute and after when every people have spoken the leader must to choose the more important facts and to continue by talking about it.

I am afraid that if I act like this my folks will not be prepare and it will be a little cahotic.

What do you think about this organisation of staff meeting ?

Thanks for your great job I am very impatient to meet you at the conference next september.

asteriskrntt1's picture

Hi Penven

There are at least five podcasts on Meetings so far. There are podcasts on how to run basic meetings that were presented Aug 1, 08 and 16, 2005.

Additionally, there is a specific series on how to run your staff meetings from May 21 and 28 of this year. Those podcasts seem to run contrary to the advice Patrick Lencioni is offering in his book.

*RNTT

magnus's picture

Hi Penven,

If you dont use an agenda, you don't have control on your time. And if you don't have control on your most valuable resource, how can you be effective?

Probably learned this from mark & mike, but I just don't know any more... They teach us so much!

- Magnus -

jmp's picture

Hi,magnus,

I agree with you that is seem to be out of control but Lencioni seem to be a reference in this field then I would like to here what think Mike and Marc about is concept.

If some folks who use this method it will be good to heard them.

jhack's picture

A few quick thoughts:

Scheduling 1 minute per person IS an agenda.

Scheduling 1 minute per person is inadequate if those people are engaged in non-trivial tasks. How can someone possibly convey the content of their work, the interconnections with the work of others, and their work's connection to the strategic goals of the team in sixty seconds?

Can you summarize your work in 60 seconds?

Most fields have well regarded experts whose theories are not supported by the data.

garyslinger's picture

[quote="magnus"]Hi Penven,

If you dont use an agenda, you don't have control on your time. And if you don't have control on your most valuable resource, how can you be effective?

Probably learned this from mark & mike, but I just don't know any more... They teach us so much!

- Magnus -[/quote]

http://www.manager-tools.com/2005/08/effective-meetings-theres-more/

Think of it as an optional step you can take down the road once your meetings are under control generally.

I'll say this - I've used it, in a technical setting, productively for "more than a while", and it worked very well, not just in my estimation but in the estimation of the team I had at the time. It's just another tool in your toolbox - not appropriate everywhere, or everytime, but /sometimes/...

G.

garyslinger's picture

[quote="jhack"]A few quick thoughts:

Scheduling 1 minute per person IS an agenda.

Scheduling 1 minute per person is inadequate if those people are engaged in non-trivial tasks. How can someone possibly convey the content of their work, the interconnections with the work of others, and their work's connection to the strategic goals of the team in sixty seconds?

Can you summarize your work in 60 seconds?

Most fields have well regarded experts whose theories are not supported by the data.[/quote]

Yes, I can summarize the most pertinent parts of my last week, and my most important potential pain-points for the following week, in 60 seconds. And so could my half-dozen plus direct reports when I used it in a meeting format for a couple of years, not so long back. Sure, the first couple of meetings were a little shaky, but it got on track.

It's a tool. It's useful in certain types of meeting, with certain types of folks. Nothing more, nothing less.

jhack's picture

Why have a meeting? Meetings are about people, and relationships. This format is not designed to foster relationships. If it's just an information exchange, you could do that via email, blog, wiki, or newsletter.

Not sure what business you're in, but there is no way I or any of my directs could provide the relevant update about their work, how it might impact others, dependencies on others, and the strategic alignment of our efforts, in sixty seconds.

garyslinger's picture

[quote="jhack"]Why have a meeting? Meetings are about people, and relationships. This format is not designed to foster relationships. If it's just an information exchange, you could do that via email, blog, wiki, or newsletter.

Not sure what business you're in, but there is no way I or any of my directs could provide the relevant update about their work, how it might impact others, dependencies on others, and the strategic alignment of our efforts, in sixty seconds.[/quote]

The one minute each process defines the agenda for the rest of the meeting - that's when the relationship stuff happens, when everyone is engaged in discussing something that is immediately needed and necessary.

It was a fortnightly operations priorities meeting, within the IT space, for what it's worth. Note that I haven't said that this format is appropriate for [i]every[/i] meeting - just that it's a tool that can be used for certain things. It goes without saying, for instance, that O3's are handled differently.

G.