Eye contact

What gets said in a meeting isn't necessarily the most impactful message.  Sometimes it's the body language that speaks the loudest.  A head down, eyes on the table vs. eyes on the person who is talking.  When you choose where to lay your eyes, what a strong message you send.

Professional or personal?

I've been struggling this week with the balance between the professional and the personal in meetings.  A professional meeting, that is, one that occurs on work time or in a work capacity, requires a more professional tone.  The meeting agenda stays focused on the agenda and tasks, rather than our personal feelings and needs.  A family meeting around the kitchen table, for example, that's where the personal shows up.  But this week I've experienced some meetings where the two got blended together.  That surely is unavoidable.  And I'm still trying to figure out the right blend.

The Legislative Committee Hearing

Obviously, not all legislative committee chairs think alike. The Chairpersons, not the things on which they place their butts. Some committee meetings run like clockwork. The business gets done, everybody gets to have their say. Some committee meetings run like hell. Half the bills get delayed while some testifier or legislator is allowed to talk on an on. So here is my question: is it best to have all the discussion out in the open? My democratic mind thinks so. But my art-of-meeting mind says otherwise. While sitting in a hearing yesterday, I had so much wished that a good part of the work had been accomplished prior to the committee hearing's start. Get your ducks in order, talk to colleagues and your testifiers, and then get back to clockwork.

Natural Born Facilitator

Some people are just really good at meeting facilitation. They appear to naturally understand how to lay out expectations, read the group when a change is needed, move people along respectfully and draw out the voices of quiet members. Can we provide facilitator training to create effective meeting facilitators? Or is this something that we naturally just get or don't get? I think it's got to be some of both.

Agenda as metaphor for work plan

Those of you who know me know that I love to think and talk about meeting agendas and work plans. I realized today that for me, an agenda is a good metaphor for a work plan. A good agenda lays out a purpose for the meeting, what needs to get accomplished, is appropriate related to the resources available, engages everyone at the table, and has a clear goal that can be achieved. And sometimes includes an evaluation at the end. HEY! Just like a good work plan.

PowerPoint

I happen to enjoy PowerPoint. I like the endless permutations of slide designs, options for audio and video, photos, links, words. But let's consider what is the best use of PowerPoint and when it's best to leave it out. Your meeting requires a more formal presentation of content to a group large enough to warrant a presentation projected in the front of the room? Go for it. A colleauge at the AIDS Foundation of Chicago's use of PowerPoint is so brilliant, engaging and worthwhile that I don't know that I'd ever turn away from his use of this tool. On the other hand, does your meeting involve a small group of people that may be much better engaged by actually looking at each other in the eye from across the table? Leave the PowerPoint out.

Transformation?

Can changing the way a meeting is structured, facilitated, etc., mean transformational change for an organization? I'd like to think so. Meetings are often the way we communicate with each other in our workplaces. They can be one way to get real work done. I believe if we structured our meetings to be strategic, shared power amongst the members and held ourselves accountable for meaningful results, we could create real change.