MANAGEMENT
Meetings are the best alternative to not working. This piece whilst addressing the title of the article in more than one way will indirectly identify how to ru(i)n the meetings.
Meetings are a great trap. Soon you find yourself to get agreement and then the people who disagree come to think they have a right to be persuaded. Thus they acquire power; thus meetings become a source of opposition and trouble. However, they are indispensable when you do not want to do anything (John Galbrith in Ambassador’s journal).
The first prelude to the process of meeting is to prepare and have an agenda. Impromptu meetings to discuss crises or a special given situation do not require formal pre-advised agenda. However, meetings that are due to process of management must have in place a pre-advised agenda. If agenda is the guiding document for a meeting, the question arises who should prepare the agenda- the secretary, the chairman or the participants. The quickest and sharpest answer is that it must have inputs of all of the three but then ultimately it must be agenda driven by the chairperson. Nothing in the agenda or its related proceedings should come as a surprise to the chair. This aspect if not adhered to is a sure recipe for the meeting to hit the rock, at its very beginning.
The second critical step is informing about the scheduled meeting. Should notice be sent? Yes. The aspect of relating how and by what time frame the notice(s) to participants should be sent are usually enshrined in code of corporate governance, the law and good and best practices. I have always been amused when notice to meetings state, ‘the meeting shall start at 9am ‘sharp’ or ‘participants are requested to be on time.’ What? Isn’t arriving on time a given thing? May-be not.
Recently the newly inducted Chief Minister of Sindh asked the bureaucrats to be in office on time- what? Seniors need reminders to be on time. Maybe yes. If it were not so, this information would not have made to news headlines in electronic and print media. Tardiness is not acceptable. It renders the meeting to be a casual assembly of ‘uninterested’ constituents. The chain has to enforce discipline only once…’humans’ fall in line very quickly!
Who should be very well prepared for the meeting? The chairperson, the one on whose behest the meeting has been called, the secretary or the respective agenda item owners? Or is it a disjointed responsibility. Regardless of what and whose item it may be, the chairperson has to be the most prepared. He need not be a Mr. Know-it-all but must have basic inputs to open the subject he can leave details to the subject matter experts. The chairperson has to keep the meeting focussed. A weak chairperson will lead the meeting to no-where.
Meetings called to meet regulatory compliance are very different from MANCOM meetings that covers a host of issues like budgets, business forecasts, IT requirements, HR Management- here there is distributed responsibility for each item of agenda relating to specific subjects, require subject matter experts, inputs. The chairperson should keep all participants in check, lest they wrest the control of the meeting and take it to a point of no return. There is no room for free format- every participant jumping from one subject to another. A free for all environment guarantees, total breakdown of proceedings. The chairperson must take a quick notice and nip in bud any theatrical performances from the participants. Such have to be reminded that there is no gallery to play to or the meeting is not about any up coming general elections. William Goldman, a celebrated, US screenwriter and novelist had once commented, ‘whoever invented the meeting must have had Hollywood in mind. I think they should consider giving Oscars for meetings: Best meeting of the year, Best supporting meeting, Best meeting based on material from another meeting’. To this I would like to add recognition for the ‘Best Comic in Meetings’ and ‘Best Boot licker’, Categories. In the last category, I am sure there would be the fiercest competition!
Is it necessary for the chairperson to sit at the head table? My personal view is ‘no’. It is all about deformed ego base; it is a false, self-deceptive feeling of being important. The chair can sit anywhere he prefers- meetings are conducted by his conduct, resolve, aura and respect; but certainly not by his/her being at the head of the conference table. The introduction of ‘round table’ (only if they are round and not rectangular round) took away the concept of where the most intelligent or the most foolish, chairperson, should be perched. Further, it should be ensured that there are no spots reserved- free seating must be encouraged for better camaraderie. Just because a participant sat at a vantage point (seat) in the last meeting does not mean he or she has ‘inherited’ the right to occupy the same chair.
Also the physical posturing of participants sets the tone of the meeting. All must sit straight and erect. Slouchy, half reclined, swinging to and fro or pushing back the chair and sitting cross legged, indicate informality and takes the punch away from the meeting.
Are meetings really a two-way traffic flow of information, within the hierarchy both upwards and its cascading downwards? This is largely dependent upon the secretary and the chairperson; if these are inactive individuals then certainly the proceedings will be minuted and later archived to dust!
Some participants seek information, some give information, some sum up views of other participants and some just cannot help but speak! These are usually the destroyers of the meetings objectives. They run amok with their ‘full of themselves’ analysis. The chairperson must deal in full visibility to others, these troublemakers with a degree of high handedness. It will bring order. Contrary to these afflicted with verbal haemorrhage, there are those who would not speak a word. The chair must draw them into discussion by invitation.
When to speak in a meeting is critical- just when the issue is under discussion- earlier could be disastrous and later when all have expressed, it will be of low or no value. Intervene in the discussion at the right time, but with grace. Said a sage, seven characteristics distinguish the wise; he does not speak in the presence of one who is wiser than himself, does not interrupt; is not hasty to answer, asks and answers to the point; talk about first things first and last things last; admits when he does not know and acknowledges the ‘truth’.
Finally, the chairperson has the responsibility to make the meeting a success by concluding each agenda item, with a decision. Nothing should be left to guessing or imagination.
The chairperson can kill a meeting or give it life and impetus- largely dependent upon, human skills, rather than mere technical proficiency. ‘Youth is to study wisdom and old age for its practice. Knowledge comes fast, wisdom follows and mostly lingers.’
The writer is a freelance columnist
