jessa

When I was a recent graduate and in my first job, I was so excited and nervous about attending my first general meeting; I had no idea what to expect. But then as the meeting went on, I started to realize that workplace meetings are just like those we have in schools—some listen, some don’t, others zone out blank probably because they lacked sleep the night before. And meeting hosts could talk and talk and talk too, not minding the room, whether their words fall on deaf ears, just as long as they get their rehearsed words out. Some things don’t change with age.

I’ve also been in meetings where I can’t keep focus because I feel like I’m forced to listen to information that doesn’t add value to me (which probably does for others). And so I zone out and try to keep myself awake while feeling guilty about it. Does it mean that I am not supposed to be in that meeting?

In the jobs I took on later in life, I learned that effective meeting hosts are skilled at defining the purpose of their meetings. Are they sense-making meetings where participants can work through something ambiguous together, where sharing understanding is the point and not the deliverable? Are they relationship meetings that intend to build trust between participants and produce social capital? Or are they decision meetings that require participants to review/approve a document, make a decision, and agree on a plan?

When you run a relationship meeting like a decision meeting, it quickly feels cold. Should we keep talking? Is this almost over? And running a decision meeting like a sense-making conversation resolves nothing. When will you stop meandering and get to the point?

And the gap between purpose and format is where frustration lives. I have sat in rooms where everyone was waiting for a decision, keeping everyone on their toes and wondering who would stop dangling the carrot and wield the stick. Have you?