I posted earlier about mechanism design (read here), and how an imbalance in levels of understanding can impact outcomes. In a meeting, we'd usually consider this to be gaps in mastery of the content and subject matter at hand. But in a strategic planning meeting, outcomes can also be warped to the detriment of an organization by different levels of understanding of process and format as well. Those less familiar with strategic planning often don't contribute as much as they should. Those more familiar can abuse their familiarity.
A few other of the innumerable people centric challenges in strategic planning meetings:
- Motivations - Everyone has their interests besides the greater good.
- Imposing personalities - Moderators can help, but if that one person that really wants to be heard and really doesn't want others to be heard wants it bad enough, they can ruin any meeting.
- Excessively passive personalities - Those who think their discomfort speaking in a group is a card that trumps any obligation to contribute.
- Over facilitation - A facilitator or moderator that is too driven by or attached to their process can blindly suffocate conversation; which is the lifeblood of any good meeting.
- Politickers - The answers and directions are clear in their mind. The objective is making everyone else see it so clearly... by nearly any means necessary.
I could go on, and really want to. But I won't right now. I'm trying to limit my word count.
What are some big ones I'm missing here?
2 comments:
I really like your point about the passive personalities, using their shyness as an excuse to disengage from the meeting and therefore omit any accountability for the result. I encounter this fairly often and find it one of the most challenging dynamics to deal with.
Another factor that plays a role that I have noticed is a lack of commitment or motivation, those opposite to the "Motivations" that have no interest in the outcome. These individuals have no place in the meeting room, but weeding them out can be quite a challenge (audience response maybe?).
At least it sounds like you recognize that dynamic and are trying to deal with it. Awareness is the first step.
Commitment and motivations. "Motivations in Meetings" has long been at the top of my list of things I want to blog about. It never happens because I just have too much to say. Nobody would read a 10 page blog. A huge and critical point you've introduced though. Motivations go way beyond this corner of the spectrum, but that individual that just doesn't care is a real impediment to productivity and a staunch obstacle to follow-through.
I would think that weeding them out would have to happen pre-meeting. I would also think that the ideal would be inclusiveness. So rather than removing them, explore other ways to possibly engage or remove the barrier that finds them disinterested (or possibly resentful or actively opposed to the meeting).
Post a Comment