By BLR Founder and CEO Bob Brady
Everyone says they hate meetings—yet they are a staple of 21st century business ritual. If we can’t meet in person, we do them on the phone or, increasingly, through such nifty gadgetry as GoToMeeting or Webex. Today, BLR’s founder and CEO Bob Brady shares what he’s learned from Google about meaningful meetings.
Every week, I have regularly scheduled phone “meetings” with colleagues in Florida and California. The process has become familiar enough that they are almost as effective as doing it face-to-face.
But bad meetings, electronic or otherwise, are incredible time wasters. Lots of people not getting much done, feeling bad about it, and getting frustrated and mad at their co-workers. Who could ask for anything less?
There are numerous articles and books about how to improve meetings. Some offer intriguing approaches, such as very short time limits for meetings; not scheduling them on certain days; even not providing chairs.
See what everyone’s talking about! Check out BLR’s remarkable everything-you-need-for-HR website, HR.BLR.com, at no cost or risk and get a complimentary special report! Click for info.
At first glance, these have their place, but as in so many things these days, Google has a better idea. I recently heard a newly hired Google executive tell about it. He opened my eyes a bit, and showed me one of the reasons that Google is so successful.
At a Google meeting, a high point arrives when it comes time to review and assign the “AIs.” “What on earth is an AI?” you ask. An AI is an action item, and according to the speaker, the average Google meeting ends with a high-energy level as these are assigned and reviewed.
The result is that the attendees leave committed to getting things done as a result of the meeting. They didn’t just get together to discuss, decide on the next meeting, and talk about process. The whole frame of mind is, “We’ll have this meeting to decide what we are going to do, who is going to do it, and what the deadline will be.”
It’s hard to believe that this really happens all the time, but the message is clear: You can have all the right process in place for efficient and effective meetings, but if the culture and people are not committed to getting things done—to having action items—nothing will change.
It is doubtful that someone at Google sat down and said, “OK, whenever we have a meeting, we’ll end up with ‘AIs.’” More likely, the practice was adopted from prior experience and became part of the culture because it worked.
Form for Meetings
A few months back, I wrote in this column about a form I’ve used over the years to try to organize meetings. It has a place for agenda, minutes, “to do’s,” etc. Does the Google experience (or, more precisely, my comments about it) mean that the form is just empty process? The answer is yes, if the culture doesn’t support the need to get things done.
Try HR.BLR.com at no cost or risk and keep the special report, Top 100 FLSA Q & A’s, no matter what you decide. Click for details.
No form, no matter how perfect, will squeeze water out of a stone. HR’s job (through recruiting and hiring) is to help managers make sure the right people are at those meetings. We also have some level of responsibility, through training, to provide tools and processes that will bring the best out in people.
But in the end, meetings boil down to the people themselves. If the speaker was correct, and Google has great meetings, it’s because they have great people. Take the same process and embed it in another organization, and it will deliver results only to the level of the people implementing it.
That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t work at process, just that we should see it for what it is. Process brings character out; it doesn’t create it.
That’s my e-pinion. I’d appreciate hearing yours. Email me at Rbrady@blr.com, or use the Share Your Comments button below to let us know your thinking right now. (All emailed replies may be published. So, tell us if you wish to remain anonymous.)
Our meetings tend to devolve into Announce and Pronounce, and that’s a shame because we do have people who want to be involved and want to do the right thing. How many thousands of books have been written on developing that culture which thrives on highly-motivated, self-directing teams?
Often it seems that the will to become that culture thrives just beneath the surface like a germinated seed just waiting for the moment to break ground again and become new life. For the seed it takes water, sunshine, nutrients, and all in well-balanced proportions. Despite the large number of variables, that process happens gazillions of times per second. What stops in it organizations? I wish I knew. Perhaps the secret rests in the very energy that creates and sustains Google: They are committed to change because not doing so means they will die. They ACT on that premise while others ruminate on it.
The Google article is inspirational and speaks to the truth about the results of an effective meeting. However, in the absence of effective leadership, any meeting is destined to fall short. It is not the members, but rather the captain that sets the tone and provides the example of accomplishment. That said, even the captain needs skilled workers and a format for success. A form to organize and keep the meeting focused will work in the right hands.