Of Meetings, Black Holes and Red Hats.
Of Meetings, Black Holes and Red Hats.
Have you ever been in a meeting and in all honesty have just wondered why you are there?
You are either surplus to requirements, just going to agree with the boss (so let’s just get it over with) or there is that much politics and in- fighting going on that you feel like getting up, passing your mobile number to the altercates and telling them to send you a text when they have finished. At least one of you can be doing something useful.
Well, I am an accountant; not the most exiting profession at times I will grant you so you can imagine what internal meetings for me can be like. I often muse that one of the essential qualifications for any self respecting accountant is the ability to yawn with your mouth closed – now that should be on the examination syllabus.
I guess it is a truism the world over that if you gather together a number of (supposedly) intelligent people in one room to discuss a particular subject then conflict is likely, unless the answer is blindingly obvious, or you are just being told what to do (then why would you need a meeting?).
After all we all think differently and the whole point of the meeting is to get the input of those different views and come to some conclusion about the best way to proceed. That may not always be to your liking, but we put our own will to one side and back the decisions made by the committee and make it work.
I just feel that the whole concept of the meeting has an obvious flaw in it that we all seem to fall into – every single time!
Very few people (included me) are arrogant enough to think that their view is sacrosanct and is so firm, well rounded and unassailable that nobody else can contribute to it. Most of us look up to somebody and would not ignore their views on a matter, whether due to fear or awe. If you are an owner, leader, manager or chairman it is likely that you have come to realise that you can’t do everything and the people sat around your table are the brains that keep the business ticking – so even you do not want to ignore those more intelligent (in certain area’s) than you.
So the meeting is doomed.
It is almost a foregone conclusion that the outcome of the meeting will go to the one with the loudest voice, the best argument (assuming the advocate has the courage and skill to put the idea forward) or what the boss wants. However the most likely outcome will be the mediocre inoffensive damp squib alternative that ‘we all agree on’ (how cosy!).
Good idea’s, innovation and creativity are stifled or even destroyed, talent is in real danger of getting beaten down and bored and our most precious commodity, time, gets sucked into that relentless black hole in the boardroom, swirling around and around, until someone gives in.
Worst of all, the right conclusion for the business is unlikely to be achieved and those charged with carrying it can leave disgruntled and half hearted.
Can it be rescued?
Well, here are some questions. Why should the person with the strongest argument win? Why do we only ever support our own idea’s? Why do we fall into the trap of sitting around banging our heads together like rutting stags? What a waste of intellectual resources!
What if:-
All members of the meeting had to support the view that was currently on the table?
No negative comments, no disparaging remarks, no defensiveness and NO SILENCE. All must turn their considerable and expensive intelligence FOR the motion in hand. Only then can all of the meeting members turn their attention to assessing the negatives – including those putting the motion forward.
This way all ideas get their fair crack of the whip, and do not depend upon the position or skills of their advocate to carry them forward. Who knows, maybe the process will be enjoyable, and we might even create something new, worthwhile and inspirational.
A chap call Edward de Bono pioneered a similar approach to this in his book – Six Thinking Hats, where he proposed that all decisions (not just in meetings, although this was his main application) should be made wearing all hats at separate times – for example his red hat signified intuition or gut feeling, the black hat was for caution and pointing out where things might go wrong. There are 4 other hats, with different colours – I would recommend doing a Google search on it because there are has been a lot written about his approach by the ‘consultants’ in this world.
I personally am not too sure about the hats approach. I am all for common sense in everything I do. Sometime adopting a rigid framework can be equally as stifling as the argument and power struggle. However we have to do something about the meetings!! I can yawn with my mouth closed as well as the next accountant, but it is the black hole of time that is in danger of sucking me in.