03.10.10
Leadership Team Meetings, How Long Should They Be?
This morning I’ve had an ongoing e-mail conversation. One of my favorite leaders and I have been discussing how long leadership meetings should last. This all started with an e-mail he forwarded to me suggesting 22 minute meetings. I responded with the following e-mail.
7:50 a.m.
Interesting. This is a great idea if the leader doesn't plan on creating a team, allowing synergy to get the best from everyone, and the leader just doesn't care about the lives of the people they're leading. I can certainly see this as being an important way to do a meeting if the leader is just trying to make a quick decision, especially those decisions a leader has already made but wants to make those who work for them believe they've been given a chance to give input.
(After a re-read I realized the 7:50 a.m. e-mail sounds negative and attacking. I should proof-read e-mails when writing them in the early morning hours.)
7:55 a.m.
His response… I look at meeting as two kinds, information/planning and strategy meetings. Strategy meetings take lots of time, I usually plan at least two hours. However, on the synergy and building team, there are lots of ways to do that other than in a meeting with computers open and cell phones on. The meeting that would apply to what I sent is about getting to a decision or information out quickly.
Maybe I just sit it too many meetings, most of them bad, but I have rarely been to one, productive, that was more than 30 minutes. My department meetings are once a week for 30 minutes. My team loves me for it and I feel certain we have a very strong team with great synergy.
8:30 a.m.
My response to his response… I sure don't disagree with the principles you’re espousing. That's the reason I spoke of what the goal of the meeting was when I spoke of the difference between a quick decision meeting and a synergistic meeting where people give meaningful input. I'm sure you do both with your team.
Here's the deal... Most people do not feel their ideas are valued, believe they are seen as having more to bring to the table than getting their job done, and perceive that the organization does not believe they can make a major difference unless they are in meetings that allow them to be involved in the thought process. Sometimes administrative types confuse getting the job done quickly with leadership. Efficiency trumps growing team members for those who value completing a checklist. They value going home with the check list done over building people. In most instances this leads to vision-less team members who simply do their jobs and go home.
Sometimes management passes down to those below them on the food chain what role they will play and how work will get done. That's fantastic management, not great leadership, especially if management is trying to see who their leaders, visionaries, dreamers, and culture changers are. This is especially perplexing for an organization like a church. Perhaps no organization I know of has more people with leadership abilities than staff members. They are leaders at some level or they wouldn’t have been hired to lead a ministry area (or the church made a bad hire) Most come to their new church thinking they will be involved in game-changing conversations only to find out they aren't invited into them. These staff members soon settle into the role that the organization silently but boldly stated they would fill. At some point they grow tired and lifeless (this is when we tell them they’re burned out and need to get help or leave.) because they are shut out of the conversations that give them life.
Some will say that feelers need longer meetings, others will proclaim that leaders keep their hirelings from getting their job done if they have meetings that go too long, and there are those who are wise, they find a healthy balance in the 22 minute meeting and the three hour meetings.
I absolutely hate meetings where I feel that all I do is inform my team of decisions I've already made. On the other hand, I find a tremendous amount of passion, participation, and buy-in when I engage my team in the design and decision making process. We meet monthly for no more than two hours. I would consider myself a leader with an administrative lean... but I've also grown to recognize that I'll never have the best ideas on my own. And just as the Holy Spirit can guide me in my planning and decision making, I believe He can also guide the team as a whole... and I would argue that this approach has more powerful results. Obviously, there are time when I have to move on things outside of our meetings. But when at all possible, I bring big decisions to our meetings, and we work together. I love it... and I THINK my team loves it, too. They keep coming back, anyway. Thanks for the post, Rick!
Great post. Will pass this on to elders/leadership team (transitioning UK church looking to the future). With London work schedules think we'd only do brief meetings with online conferencing! Refreshing approach using email conversation. All the best with this blog.
Eric and Nexi, Thanks for the input. Eric, I hope you don't have to attend many meetings where the decision has already been finalized. Seems to me from our tweeting that you have much to give.
Nexi, would love to hear how the ministry is doing in the UK.