Should meetings be efficient?

Should meetings be efficientShould meetings be efficient?

“Yes” say thousands of books on how to improve business meetings. And I agree.

But “No”, when we’re taking about most meeting industry events.

Unfortunately, the meeting industry tends to assume that if business meetings should be efficient, meeting industry events should be too.

Obviously there are aspects of meeting events that should be efficient whenever possible. For example: registration, coffee service, transporting attendees between venues, room set changes, etc.

In addition, a well thought out broadcast style design may be the right choice for some trainings and corporate events that require a top-down approach to achieve their objectives.

But, for meetings where you want participants to:

  • learn effectively;
  • form valuable connections; and
  • generate valuable ideas and approaches

you need to design meetings that are inefficient.

How efficiency can be counterproductive

Sometimes, efficiency can be the enemy of effectiveness. Here are three examples:

“If you have ever watched symphony orchestra you may have noticed how inefficient the musicians are. They are not utilised 100%. Most have below 50% efficiency. Imagine how good the music would turn out if all instruments were playing all the times. Such is the science of efficiency.“
Alidad Hamidi

“The problem is that democracy is by definition slow, messy and cumbersome. Today demands on democracy, driven by modern means of communication, are different. The pace is fast. Decisions have to be made quickly. Time for reflection and compromise is limited.”
@AlexStubb, former Prime Minister of Finland

“My own experience consulting inside some highly successful companies (Microsoft, Apple, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Dupont, to name a few) cannot corroborate a relationship between busyness and success. Very successful companies have never struck me as particularly busy; in fact, they are, as a group, rather laid-back.”
Slack: Getting Past Burnout, Busywork, and the Myth of Total EfficiencyTom DeMarco

We are not mind readers

Effectively figuring out what people want and need to learn and giving them the time and space to learn it is inefficient, because learning is messy.

Successfully supporting people in making valuable connections at meetings is also inefficient, because we do not know who might be valuable to meet until we are given opportunities and good process to find out about the people we’re with.

And creating worthwhile ideas and approaches through group process at meetings is inefficient, because we invariably have to generate many ideas that don’t pan out in order to glean the few specks of gold we’re looking for.

So, should meetings be efficient?

As Alex Stubb says, we are living in a fast-paced world where time is valuable. There is continuing pressure to shorten events, in the belief that busy prospective attendees will be more likely to attend a meeting that doesn’t tie up too much of their time and money.

However, the consequent shortening of programs and sessions has a significant impact on the effectiveness of events: their ability to deliver desired learning, connection, and creative outcomes. So be careful not to destroy the effectiveness of your event in the name of efficiency.

Image attribution: mourgfile / CC

Four tools for communities of practice

Four tools for communities of practice
HT Harold Jarche

Today, communities of practice — groups of people who share a common interest, profession, or passion and actively engage around what they have in common — have become essential sources for productive learning, because they provide crucial bridges for social learning between our work community and our external social networks.

Here are four tools for creating, supporting, and enriching communities of practice.

Peer Conferences

In my post Conferences as Communities of Practice I explain how peer conferences can support communities of practice. (In 1992, the first peer conference I ever designed created a community of practice that has endured to this day.)

Listservs

Listservs are an old but still surprisingly useful technology. They manage a list of subscribers and allows any member to send email to the list. The listserv then sends the message to the other list subscribers. Listserv software is available on multiple platforms and is free for up to ten lists of up to five hundred subscribers which should be sufficient for most communities of practice. Yes, it’s true that numerous commercial alternatives exist. But self-hosted listservs don’t rely on commercial providers who may close down or change services with little notice or recourse.

Slack

Slack can be used free for basic support of communities of practice (up to 10,000 messages), though many useful functions are only available in paid versions ($80+ per person annually). All Slack content is searchable. The product, initially targeted at organizations, has been evolving into a community platform. Because of its cost, Slack is probably most useful for communities whose members already have corporate access.

Zoom

The ability to converse with community members via audio/video/chat on a scheduled or ad hoc basis is an important tool for maintaining and growing community connections online. For many years the free Google Hangouts was my go to tool for this purpose, but the service has become almost impossible to use on an ad hoc basis and Zoom seems to be the most popular replacement. For short meetings (up to a maximum of 100 participants for 40 minutes) the free Zoom Basic will suffice, but most communities will be well served by Zoom Pro (unlimited duration and participants; $180/year). Any community member who has a paid Zoom plan can host a video/web conference. So this tool can be a cost-effective way for communities of practice to keep in touch.

Do you use other tools to create, support, and enrich your communities of practice? If so, share them in the comments below!