Death by Meeting

Patrick Lencioni. Death by Meeting: A Leadership Fable. (2004) [San Francisoc: Jossey-Bass, Wiley]

Dramatic and admittedly easily distracted, Patrick Lencioni proposes unusual responses to what he describes as the “most painful problem” of time wasted in unproductive meetings:

•  more drama .  The drama relates to generating real debate and conflict to improve decision-making and to build buy-in for decisions.  
• more meetings.  More meetings are required to ensure that each type of meeting has focus, context and purpose – rather than jumbling short medium and strategic topics into the same meeting.

Like a modern day Aesop, Lencioni primarily works through fables.  He outlines his theory of meetings using the sustained image of visual media – television and movies.  He argues that great movies are characterized by conflict – identified at the beginning of the show – and by building involvement.  He notes that we draw on different types of media for different purposes: headline news – 5 minute snapshots of current day developments; weekly TV episodes; perhaps monthly or spur-of-the-moment movies; and, perhaps seasonally, mini-series.  (The image, developed prior to Netflix, may need updating to address trends in binge-watching.)  He draws parallels to the need for active engagement in meetings and holding meetings for specific purposes – on daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly timescales.

Drama: Conflict 

 Lencioni laments the characterization of meetings as “necessary evils” to be avoided if possible.  The meetings of his fable are characterized by limited participation and avoided conversation.  Lencioni notes that meeting provide critical opportunities to develop clarity and alignment – direction on how “we spend our time and energy”.  Which means that issues need to be framed in terms of their impact on organizational outcomes and taking into account the risks attendant on alternatives.  They require active input from and interaction and challenge among the meeting participants.  Disagreements are not to be suppressed but to be aired prior to decision setting common direction and supported by all members.

Structure: Purpose-specific meetings

The agendas for meetings in the fable are set by the chair based on (limited) submissions from the members.  This results in combinations of updates and strategic discussions worked into time-limited regular meetings.  Often the agenda is dominated by administrative issues with strategic discussions often ending “on the verge of getting into a crucial conversation”.

Lencioni’s solution is to develop a broader meeting rhythm comprising four types of meetings:

1. The daily check-in
   • A 5-minute meeting, standing, to report on each member’s daily activities;
   • While seen to be demanding, Lencioni argues that without meetings most days, more time is spent coordinating schedules on an ad hoc basis.
2. The weekly (or bi-weekly) tactical meeting
   • Radically this meeting does not have a specific agenda, although it has a rigorous meta-agenda:
     1. The Lightening round – each member takes 60 seconds to update on the 2-3 highest priorities for the week
     2. Progress review – check progress against key metrics
     3. Real time agenda – based on i) and ii) determine at table the tactical issues to discuss to resolve differences and build clarity
     4. Identify strategic issues – to be addressed in other meetings.
3. The Monthly Strategic Meeting
   • Longer meetings to allow in-depth discussion (up to 2 hours each) of 1-2 strategic topics.
   • These meetings require advance agendas and deliberate gathering of information by all participants.  
4. The Quarterly Off-site review

• 1-2 days removed from distractions of the office, to allow:
  1. Comprehensive strategy review
  2. Review of team behaviour
  3. Review of personnel
  4. Competitive and industry review (what might be thought of as the environmental scan and the review of opportunities and risks).

Application

I am challenged to make best use of meetings, especially internal meetings.  This may reflect a failure to think through internal meetings as thoroughly as outside meetings.  That’s more than ironic – with whom is the need for good communication the most important?  

My regular meetings tend to be either focused on the immediate, discussions of administrative issues or information “dumps” with limited interaction.  The meetings often are activity based.  At best, they become a series of bilateral dialogues with other members reluctant to engage on the business of their colleagues.  At worst, they are a series of updates.

One response is to develop a generic agenda that captures the key strategies or lines of action in order to trigger discussion of progress under each strategy.  However, these agendas are often daunting in scope – combining discussion of activity, progress and strategy on an ad hoc basis.

Lencioni’s approach helps to define the specific purpose and context for individual meetings within a broader meeting rhythm.  In all meeting he emphasizes speed, focus and engagement.  Meetings become less the creature of the chair and more a collective enterprise.  All participants are expected to speak into the meeting – whether updating on activities daily, or identifying priorities and following up on tactical discussions weekly or taking the time for crucial strategic conversations or taking time to evaluate and revisit strategy at quarterly off-sites.