Aimless Progress?

The of the G8 Summit's feebleness in the area of committing to goals has been well publicized internationally. Most scrutinized of this most recent summit was the lack of targets with regards to emission reductions. While there was a lot of back-patting and rejoicing about the suggestions made, there were no real, er, commitments made, to adhere to any particular measure.

In meetings that bring people together to achieve a purpose, it is often observed that without concrete metrics to pursue and format for reporting on accountabilities; plans die easily. Getting these plans together and mobilized doesn't always have to happen - sometimes the conversation that explores new ideas and kindles new relationships is an adequate start. But if there's a conceded expectation that a deliverable plan will be created (seems like something G8 should consider), then it approaches being mandatory.

It can become a difficult juggling act to create a plan in a meeting that has adequate depth to inspire and guide those who will execute on it, while still taking time to assign ownership of items. One way to do this is to remind the group of timelines and clarify the importance of doing both parts effectively and efficiently, thereby setting the stage. What makes this tricky is that it often means limiting discussion that is engaging and important, but demanding of too much time.

Another recently applied experiment with this is to assign ownership of portions of a plan very randomly, and set a meeting shortly following with the owners reporting back with a rationale on the scope of the assignment, and who should champion it thereafter.