Home | Login | Recent Changes | Search | All Pages | Help

MumblingInMeetingsDiscussion

From MumblingInMeetings page

• Use an agenda distributed ahead of time.
• Publish minutes of what was agreed upon.
• Read Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision Making

--BobLee 2003.05.29

It amazes me how we butcher meetings when there are so many sources of "How to have good meetings" and good simple tips for meetings. Last week my supervisor showed me a flyer he got in the mail about a 20-minute video tape on "How to ... meetings." He wanted to know if I thought it was worthwhile.

I thought a few moments (some of these videos and books can be dangerous) and said, "Yes. It is a video, so people will watch it. It is only 20 minutes long, so people will watch it. We need all the help we can get, so maybe some people will pick up something and actually use it."

PS - thanks for creating this side discussion thread.

DwaynePhillips 30 May 2003

Interesting article, Dwayne. It's a little biased toward people who don't speak up. There's at least as much of a problem with people who don't shut up.

There are three rules of thumb that can be applied to meetings

• A meeting ought to be in aid of some result that the folks assembled can't produce by themselves.
• People invited to the meeting are presumed to have something to contribute to the results of that meeting.
• Whoever called the meeting owns allowing that contribution happen. They may want to drag in a facilitator, or allow the group to self-organize. They still own the results.

Technique in managing meetings, or yourself in meetings is useful. More important I think, is paying attention to the value that's supposed to be produced or contributed. You touch on that toward the end of your article. I think you might consider featuring this idea a bit more strongly in the piece. But that's just me.

-- JimBullock, 2003.05.30 (AYE Wiki is about banging the gnomes together. Folks who can contribute have their own sparks to add. It seems there is space enough, and editing enough, for all to contribute what they bring. AYE Wiki gives good meeting.)

The veterans have arranged a poor quality meeting. The rookie, however, is not helping. His social awkwardness is contributing greatly to the poor meeting.

DwaynePhillips 31 May 2003

Dwayne: telling me that I have missed the boat in the article

I don't believe that's what we're saying: speaking for myself, it's a "Yes, and also..." situation. Did you believe that you had to own ALL the answers? One of the interesting points in Wiki thread behavior is how ideas emerge, triggered by a starting idea.

Your characterization of the Rookie is beautiful, and I can personally relate to it, from time to time. Becky's extraverted difference in viewpoint makes your inside view of the uncomfortable Rookie that much more valuable when explaining it to people who seldom feel like that in meetings.

It's very like getting started in public speaking. Identifying the fears and perceptions and talking about them enable us to make progress on them.

Thanks! --BobLee 2003.06.10

What are guidelines for the rookie who is in a meeting without a mentor/veteran/...?

In cases where old style politics (gender-based, or other) is the norm, isn't it unlikely that a rookie can expect to find these behaviors?

Whatever the answers, your description of "how it should be" is useful as a barometer.

- BeckyWinant 2003.06.06

Becky,

I'm not sure what you mean by "realities that often side line rookies." Can you give me some examples? I like to know what you mean.

For the rookie that doesn't have a mentor, I suggest what I wrote. Sit up, drink water, make eye contact, BREATHE.

I don't understand your question, "In cases where old style politics (gender-based, or other) is the norm, isn't it unlikely that a rookie can expect to find these behaviors?" What do you mean by "old style politics?" What behaviors will the rookie not find? Do you mean it will be easier on the rookie than I described?

DwaynePhillips 7 June 2003

Let me back up ...

When I first read your posting I suspected that you might have an MBTI that began with I. Mine begins with E. In meetings I am either silent or vocal, but I rarely, if ever, mumble.

I really liked the notion of rookie and veteran, because these are roles that exist regardless of our preferences. Veterans certainly belong. Rookies may or may not feel a belonging. The MBTI might just play a difference.

I am a "rookie" with my current employer. I have been here since St Patrick's Day. I do not always know the references (historic, names or TLAs) that are thrown around in meetings. Sometimes I say nothing and make a note, somethimes I speak up and declare ignorance.

And, then ... sometimes I pause - losing sight of how to proceed. It isn't mumbling, but it is related. I am asked a question which is "loaded", but I don't and maybe can't know the "correct" answer. Anwers in organizations are contextual and as rookie can't appreciate all of the context from the start. Maybe a mentor can help, and maybe they (he or she) can't. Ultimately our reaction to life's experiences.

- BeckyWinant 2003.06.09

The mumbling is something I have done and seen. It shows a lack of interpersonal skills in meetings. That is what I wanted to get across in the article - an example of lacking interpesonal skills and what people can do to overcome it.

Recently I have noticed veterans lacking some of the same basic interpersonal skills for meetings. Just yesterday I was in a meeting where a veteran mumbled; she held her chin in her hand while talking. That keeps the mouth from opening properly and causes mumbles. Perhaps she was nervous. The meeting was in her office, but she was saying things that disagreed with some other people in the meeting who have a higher rank than she.

Becky, I appreciate your comments and the time you took to state them a second time.

DwaynePhillips 10 June 2003 8 AM

DwaynePhillips 10 June 2003 10AM

KeithRay 2003.06.10