Here are the four ways meeting fail: You don’t make a decision. You make a poor decision. You make a slow decision. Or you make a low-commitment decision, to which everyone agrees in principle but nothing is likely to happen.
That list of failure modes comes from two McKinsey & Co. consultants who have spent considerable time watching meetings at various organizations. Failure in this context is based on the notion that a meeting is meant for making decisions. But the problem, Aaron De Smet says on a recent McKinsey podcast, is most meetings are essentially designed not to make a decision.
The meeting is intended instead to merely bring a lot of people together to discuss an important topic. Everyone present can express their opinions, everyone has a vote, and that means, he says, everyone essentially has a veto. So the meeting serves as a general discussion with people presenting to each other, rather than as an effective decision-making vehicle.
He recommends starting with the decision in mind as the main factor when you plan the meeting. Perhaps an individual has already made a decision. In that case, the meeting is a chance to explain it to the team. Or perhaps a couple of people must make a decision, and want some help. Now you need to figure out who should be in the room with them.
“There are companies that, in an effort to be collaborative, become polite and overly involve people just so no one feels offended. And sometimes a good collaboration doesn’t mean that you’re super polite and involve everyone,” Mr. De Smet stresses.
Colleague Leigh Weiss adds that people going to the meeting to find out what’s happening on the issue can be informed by a memo. She cites a consumer packaging company: “What we found was that across many decisions – dozens of decisions in the organization – on average, 40 per cent of the people involved in the decisions contributed no value. And that wasn’t because they aren’t smart, capable people. It’s just that when a packaging decision was made, an HR person didn’t need to be involved.”
Meetings can be effective with 50 people in the room, they advise, as long as everyone has a clear role to play in the decision. There are four roles, starting with the decision-makers, those who actually have a vote and the major responsibility. They will want advisers present, people who have special expertise. The next player is the recommender, who presents the information, the pros and cons of options studied, and the proposed course of action. Finally, the execution partners, whose job it will be to implement the decision, can benefit from hearing the decision-making process.
Some of that thinking violates the famed two-pizza rule set out by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. He wanted meetings to only have as many attendees as could comfortably share two pizzas. But his thinking on the two basic types of decisions you face can add to the McKinsey consultants’ approach.
Some decisions need to be made slowly and carefully. “I often find myself at Amazon acting as the chief slowdown officer: ‘Whoa, I want to see that decision analyzed 17 more ways because it’s highly consequential and irreversible,’” he explained to a conference at the Ronald Reagan Institute three years ago.
When the decision is made, he says, you are stepping through the equivalent of a one-way door and can’t come back. Most decisions, however, are like regular doors: You can step through and, if it doesn’t work out, return. A wrong decision is not a killer.
The problem in most large organizations, he says, is that all decisions end up receiving the heavyweight process that is only really needed for irreversible, highly consequential decisions. “And that’s a disaster,” he insists. So ask before every decision which category it fits – and thus gauge how quickly you can move.
Also in that talk, he looked at who is in the meeting from a different perspective. You want passionate missionaries on your team – people who care. The problem is that if everyone cares and you aren’t careful, the decision-making process can become a war of attrition. Whoever has the most stamina will win, as others concede. “That is the worst decision-making process in the world. It leaves everybody demoralized,” he said.
Instead, he argues, decisions where people come to loggerheads must be escalated quickly to more senior leaders, rather than being kept with junior people. The more senior person will hear the various points of view and say, “Look, none of us know what is the right decision here, but I want you to gamble with me. I want you to disagree with me and commit.”
In other words, the non-decision-makers must commit to wholeheartedly pursue the declared course of action even while disagreeing. Mr. Bezos adds that crucial to this approach is a wise senior person who will sometimes choose to disagree and commit to what a junior person is recommending. “I disagree and commit all the time,” Mr. Bezos said. He might feel the other person has a greater grounding or stake in the matter and so he opts to disagree and commit. With that comes a promise never to say “I told you so.”
Rethink your approach to meetings using those ideas, paying particular decision to who attends, what type of decisions are made, and when to disagree and commit. Be sure your meetings are not set up to fail.
Cannonballs
- Change expert Greg Satell asks you to jettison all the buzz about living in a world of volatility and constant disruption to corporations. In fact, industries are more concentrated and less competitive than in the past. Corporations aren’t being disrupted; people are, by economic trends and corporate decisions, and that’s why so many are leaving or considering leaving their place of employment.
- The missing conversations are the most expensive, says consultant Art Petty – managers’ challenging chats with their staff about performance, improvement and innovation.
- Wharton School professor emeritus Michael Useem urges you not to limit your questioning just to candidates for the top job in your organization. Ask managers who have worked for or with all the finalists whom they would choose. When that was asked at GlaxoSmithKline, a dark horse candidate emerged to win the race.
Harvey Schachter is a Kingston, Ont.-based writer specializing in management issues. He, along with Sheelagh Whittaker, former CEO of both EDS Canada and Cancom, are the authors of When Harvey Didn’t Meet Sheelagh: Emails on Leadership.
Stay ahead in your career. We have a weekly Careers newsletter to give you guidance and tips on career management, leadership, business education and more. Sign up today.
Harvey Schachter