Brownfield & LentHigh Engagement Meetings:
Leading Meetings that Produce Results
When are High Engagement Meetings appropriate? This approach is for anyone who wants to hold meetings that engage participants and produce results. Specifically it is for:
- Leaders of all kinds of meetings in all kinds of settings.
- Meetings that last from 30 minutes to 3 hours or longer.
- Anyone who wishes to involve people in contributing to and acting on meeting decisions.
How are High Engagement Meetings Different from Typical Meetings?
While meetings are critical to getting work done, they can be frustrating and contentious with few clear or lasting outcomes. In spite of our best intentions, we find ourselves in meetings where we are stuck in disagreement, fail to generate new insights, or achieve little commitment to act on any conclusions.
Sometimes this is because we seem to hold meetings on the assumption that a group of well-meaning people will have a good conversation and arrive at reasonable conclusions with little specific guidance for meeting together. In such situations, however, we struggle to keep the discussion on track. We have side conversations, defend our position, and consume time without tangible results. We usually muddle-through, but such meetings are not very productive.
At other times, we seem to assume that a good meeting comes through control of participation, information, and decision-making. But again we struggle to engage one another in a productive way. In such meetings you may find:
- Time and energy devoted to disagreements.
- Attention focused on responsibilities for past and present problems.
- Decisions reached by voting or by exception, as when the leader asks "does anyone have a different view?"
- Participants maintain their positions and do only what they must to comply with expectations.
A third way: Engagement
In contrast to either muddling-through or control-based approaches, meetings can be based on an orientation that emphasizes engagement. Such meetings are designed to enable people to share their perspectives, build on each other’s ideas and develop commitment to act.
- Areas of disagreement are acknowledged but not all-consuming.
- Priorities are placed on areas of common agreement to generate action.
- Participants focus on what they want to achieve, not just problems.
- Decisions are developed in ways that build upon various perspectives and create commitment to action.
Examples of High Engagement Meetings
PostMerger Integration. A merger of two pharmaceutical firms with very different cultures and histories made it imperative that the scientists collaborate efficiently on new drug development efforts. A broad cross section of the two organizations came together in a half-day meeting to explore the steps in each other’s development processes. Several rounds of small and large group discussion built a widely shared recognition of the need for greater understanding and collaboration across disciplines and steps in the process. Over the next several months, activities were initiated with broad support to improve communication, collaboration, and overall efficiency.
Dysfunctional Leadership Team. A difficult leadership transition resulted in a fractured, dispirited management team that now had to take on greater responsibility for achieving the business goals. In a half-day meeting they shared personal stories of best practice and views of the current state before confirming their shared vision for their performance at its best. They then made action plans for achieving specific aspects of the vision and built a base for frank exchange of progress and learning. Within three months they achieved important improvements as a business and in work as a team.
Community Nonprofit Reorganization. A church board wanted to gain support for a controversial reorganization of staff roles and responsibilities. In a one-hour meeting, the board presented their proposal and then engaged the congregation in small, mixed groups to discuss their reactions. The groups reported their feedback as the board listened and took notes. The board adjourned to reconvene for a second hour with the congregation a week later. Here, they summarized what they heard and how they had incorporated the feedback into the final proposal. The proposal is put to a vote and receives nearly unanimous support.
For further information on our approach, see Effective Conversations for Decision Making: Improving Behavior or Changing Structure?