What is the reason for having meetings? You might find the question funny or even stupid. Why ask when meetings are a standard component of the everyday work in most organizations. But what are they for? Why do we have these meetings? There could be a large cost connected with the meeting. Often there is paperwork to be done before, there is the cost for the room, for coffee and of course for the payment to the participants. Sometimes there has to be extra staff hired to do work instead of those participating in the meeting. When people are in a meeting they are only an expense and are not generating any revenues - or are they?
I regard meetings to be an important work component, where information is exchanged, creative ideas are developed, plans and strategies are made and learning happens. But it all depends on how the meeting is designed so therefore my question: what is the reason for having the meeting? A few days ago I discussed the effect of inspirational lectures. For some they are great and they learn a lot. For many of us they are a nice break in the ordinary day but are forgotten as soon as we leave the room. This is because the lectures are not designed to attend to the different learning styles people have. It is the same with many meetings where the chairmen or chairwoman says they want people to participate in the creation of plans or strategies. I have been to so many political meetings where the participants are invited to be come up with creative solutions and to make well informed decisions, without having the opportunity to really learn about the content. The meetings were designed only for one-sided information. Sometimes I think about how much better the communities would work if the community board dared to design their meetings differently.
Most board meetings in the communities, at least in Sweden, are still designed for an era when only men were in charge and thus formed by the masculine way of speaking. Now, both women and men have masculine and feminine ways of speaking even if men tend to speak in a more masculine way than women, but it varies depending on the individual. The masculine way of speaking is more of a competition where subject is switched often and abrupt and the acknowledgement of each other´s speech is made through repeating what the previous speaker has said. The female way of speaking is more of a weaving together different subjects. The acknowledgement is made through nodding and humming or speaking together at the end of sentences, while being careful not to push the speaker into a corner. Maybe this is why men sometimes think a woman agrees, when she in fact only wants to encourage him to go on talking.
There are many participative meeting designs out there but if you don´t know what you want from investing in meetings, it is difficult to chose one that will give you the results you wish for. So I think, the question is relevant, what is the reason for having meetings?
This picture was borrowed so long ago that I lost track on who sent it to me first but I still would like to acknowledge the wisdom behind it.
I regard meetings to be an important work component, where information is exchanged, creative ideas are developed, plans and strategies are made and learning happens. But it all depends on how the meeting is designed so therefore my question: what is the reason for having the meeting? A few days ago I discussed the effect of inspirational lectures. For some they are great and they learn a lot. For many of us they are a nice break in the ordinary day but are forgotten as soon as we leave the room. This is because the lectures are not designed to attend to the different learning styles people have. It is the same with many meetings where the chairmen or chairwoman says they want people to participate in the creation of plans or strategies. I have been to so many political meetings where the participants are invited to be come up with creative solutions and to make well informed decisions, without having the opportunity to really learn about the content. The meetings were designed only for one-sided information. Sometimes I think about how much better the communities would work if the community board dared to design their meetings differently.
Most board meetings in the communities, at least in Sweden, are still designed for an era when only men were in charge and thus formed by the masculine way of speaking. Now, both women and men have masculine and feminine ways of speaking even if men tend to speak in a more masculine way than women, but it varies depending on the individual. The masculine way of speaking is more of a competition where subject is switched often and abrupt and the acknowledgement of each other´s speech is made through repeating what the previous speaker has said. The female way of speaking is more of a weaving together different subjects. The acknowledgement is made through nodding and humming or speaking together at the end of sentences, while being careful not to push the speaker into a corner. Maybe this is why men sometimes think a woman agrees, when she in fact only wants to encourage him to go on talking.
There are many participative meeting designs out there but if you don´t know what you want from investing in meetings, it is difficult to chose one that will give you the results you wish for. So I think, the question is relevant, what is the reason for having meetings?
No comments:
Post a Comment