Being Easy is Relative

When I started my business, I decided I could save some money by developing my own web page. I kept encountering phrases like, 'easy to use' and 'you'll be up and running in no time'. Needless to say, none of it was easy.

I kept running into jargon - domain name, hosting - that didn't make sense. I tried the on-line help and had the same experience. Finally, I called technical support and asked for help. They used lots of web speak which was frustrating. After walking me through the web page design process, the results didn't work because the company was having technical difficulties. I called back a day later and was told to discard the process I was instructed to use previously. So, we started the process all over again.

What is easy for one person may not be easy for someone else. I can recall when I’ve asked to have something done which I thought was easy, to only find out that there were significant problems encountered. These challenges led to delays in completing the task and frustration by the people trying to accomplish the task. I was unaware of these problems until after the task was completed or had gone badly off track.

I tried to apply these lessons by using the mental phrase, 'It is always easier when someone else has to do it'. This helped me to remember that it is important to include the person who has to accomplish the task in the planning discussion. I found that when I did this the likelihood of accomplishing the objective increased significantly. Sometimes the plan I thought would work was greatly modified as result of this process. The resulting plan ended up being more complete, realistic and had buy-in from those who had to execute it.

This planning process led to better results with fewer challenges. I sought out the folks who had to carry out the task to both recognize their efforts and to find out what challenges presented themselves. This interaction produced even more lessons learned and facilitated better planning for the next project.

Using this method doesn’t eliminate all the potential problems but it does help significantly to reduce the chances of them occurring. It takes time to do this but I have found it well worth the investment. There might be concern that this process will lead to modification of the objective or the deadline. Yes it can, but only if you choose to after weighing all the information. By simply being involved in the planning process, higher levels of commitment by those who have to carry it out will be realized.

Using the approach of including others in the planning stage will return much better results. And after all, this process is easy.

Death by Meeting

One of the topics I hear about frequently in my line of work is meetings.  When the discussion comes up I encounter deep sighs, a roll of the eyes and pained facial expressions which tell it all – a sense of dread.  Meetings don’t have to conjure up these negative feelings.  

Al was my first boss when I reported to the Pentagon in late 1990.  It was a busy place as the nation was preparing for war in the Persian Gulf.  Shortly after arriving, Al asked me to attend a meeting to discuss deployment of Army units.  You may have a mental picture of the military meeting where the General sits at the end of table and does a lot of talking.  Far from it, she acted as a facilitator by pointing out the meeting objective, encouraging everyone to participate and challenge each other, to thoroughly air out concerns and she made sure the meeting stayed on topic. 

What happened as a result of this process? There was a lot passion about the best course of action, conflict surfaced and many ideas were shared.  At then end of the meeting, the General made decisions and assigned responsibilities for follow up.  The meeting lasted three hours.  It felt more like one hour.  After the meeting I observed friendly conversations between people who had a heated discussion just 15 minutes earlier. 

At the end of my debriefing with Al, I commented about the meeting and how much conflict there was.  He told me the meeting was so effective, so purposeful because of the conflict and how that it kept everyone engaged.

The idea that conflict is necessary to effective meetings is foreign to many companies.  Conflict is viewed with apprehension given the concern for the tension which would be created and the fear of ill will after the meeting.  Conflict doesn’t have to produce these results. Patrick Lencioni in his book, ‘Death by Meeting’, talks about the need for conflict as a key requirement to effective meetings and how to avoid the negatives associated with disagreement.

Lencioni’s premise is that disagreements on what to do and how to do things exist in companies.  These disagreements serve as obstacles to accomplishing objectives unless they are surfaced and worked through.  Meetings serve as a way to identify, discuss and resolve the conflict.  The role of the boss in the meeting is to get the disagreements on the table and get them aired out.  The folks in attendance are expected to speak candidly about the topic and to hear out other viewpoints.  The ensuing discussions help keep everyone involved and serve to gain a better understanding of differing opinions.  Ultimately the boss makes the decision with the full expectation that folks go out and implement the decision. Is this process perfect?  No, there may still be some disagreement however the challenges presented by the disagreement are reduced significantly.

‘Death by Meeting’ is an easy read and includes simple techniques which can be readily adopted to make meetings effective.  Changing meetings to be more effective takes time but the effort will be well rewarded by the increase in effectiveness and productivity.  Your people will deeply appreciate the results and could be swayed to look at meetings as really helpful and rewarding.  Sounds like a pretty good investment.