Quote:
Originally Posted by Mari
I think a good meeting is where everyone needs to be there to help make decisions or vote.
|
Yep. Detailed stuff is more "group activity" and should be treated as work not meeting material... with a number of collaboration means available, including phone exchanges, asynchronous exchanges (voice or email), etc.
Quote:
|
Also, the leader should end the meeting with a summary of sorts so we leave feeling clear about what was accomplished.
|
Yep, in the workplace I found to have the best planned meetings, there was a
format and an
agenda for any given meeting, both introduced at the start. The leader maintained the format, kept people on topic, and kept things paced. Conference rooms were booked for 30 mins or 1 hour and we never went past. Meetings always ended with the leader (or someone) recapping action items and their assignees. Sometimes a deadline recap was done. The recaps took seconds and were very useful.
Short meetings (5-15 mins) were sometimes held, even impromptu, to address issues of narrow scope. Narrow scope usually meant fewer people and great efficiency. Having these left less potential for "drag" on the more general meetings.
Quote:
|
This worked BECAUSE most people came to the meeting prepared. In other words, meeting time was sacred. We were respectful about the shared sacrifice of time and space.
|
It helps when people join a group that already does meetings the right way... people learn the right habits, and perpetuate them. I've worked with people who were never exposed to a "good" (productive) meeting.
waves