© LSE Consulting Pty Ltd. All rights reserved

Are your planning meetings ruining your organization?

Organisations, large and small, spend significant time and money holding “Planning Meetings”, “Off-Sites”, “Strategy Meetings”, “Business Reviews” etc.  Whatever they are called, (for the rest of this paper we will just call them “meetings”) invariably their purpose is to get people together to work on ensuring the organisation is performing at its best and formulating plans to achieve the requirements of the stakeholders.

Unfortunately a great many of these meeting are at best a waste of time and money and at worst damaging to the organisation and its business.

How can this be?  Simply, the execution of these meetings is all too often a failure.  Across all levels of organisations, meetings are held that do not take into account the organisational human aspects, have a vague purpose, ill-defined agendas, confuse the attendees, leave those that do not attend guessing what the meeting was about, have no defined actions allocated to “owners” or time frames for completion/reporting apportioned, have no review mechanism and do not precipitate any perceivable change.  Such meetings lead the attendees and the majority of the people in the organisation, who are keen observers, to scepticism or worse; cynicism.  If these attitudes are left unchecked confidence in management will be eroded, reinforcing the truism of “a lack of communication” and ultimately damage the organisation culture due to the perceived “lack of leadership”.

It is not necessary to cite examples here.  Anyone that has worked in any medium or larger organisation will have “war stories” about seemingly ineffective, interminable, too frequent planning/review meetings that absorb a lot of time and energy of the participants and other administrative staff, yet there is no communication of the outcomes and worse, nothing seems to change, especially for the better.

The idea of getting people together to work on the business is indeed noble.  Whether the business is in great shape, running to expectation or in need of improvement, such meetings are necessary.  But the meetings can be an enabler of business performance or damage the ability to do business, often in ways that may not become apparent for some months or even years to come.

Planning meetings have a broader critical impact on the business other than the topics that are covered.  It is widely agreed that the success of an organisation hinges on its people and their willingness to apply their skills, talents, energy and time toward the company’s stated vision.  How an organisation handles meetings, at all levels, will have a significant impact on this willingness on the part of the people to work toward the vision.  Each individual in the organisation will observe the meetings and interpret them in their own way with the concurrence of opinion amongst the people regarding the meetings leading to the collective view of “how the organisation is faring” and “what management is doing about the state of the business”.  It is this organisational human aspect that many managers fail to either recognise or properly manage.

Too many managers fail to recognise that meetings and the ensuing outcomes send social, political and cultural “signals” to the participants and the observers.  I would argue that the ability to recognise and act on these areas is one key indicator that the company has “leadership” as opposed to purely “management”.

Let’s look at each of these aspects in turn:

Social

Planning/review meetings provide an event where a collection of people, often, who don’t work beside each other day to day, can form social relationships that will enable them to collaborate on the required tasks relating to the business both during and after the meeting.  This enabling of social interaction must be managed so there is the correct balance of social activity and focus on the work at hand.

A meeting that is more like a party than a business event is of no value.  Certainly people will know each other and want to collaborate but the business aspects will be unclear and hence no results will be achieved.

Equally, a meeting that allows no time for “getting to know each other” with only time to focus on the business aspects will have limited value in that the efforts after the meeting will be individualistic and not leverage collaboration that is based on a good working relationship at the management level.  This can lead to ‘dropping the ball’ in critical activities that are cross/multi functional because collaboration is not encouraged by management who have not formed a good working relationship.  At its worst, this can lead to blame and acrimony along the lines of “I could have done what I had to but they didn’t give me what I needed”.  Ultimately this reinforces a “silo effect” of “only doing what I have to do in spite of the others”.

Depending on the task at hand, it may be worth considering some team building in the planning/review meetings.  Such activities must be clearly tied to the reality of how much a “team” will really exist after the meeting to achieve the results.  If the planning meeting is about the business in a certain geography that is self sufficient but relies on various departments supporting each other, a management team is necessary.  Where a review meeting is looking at the overall output of individual geographies that do not interact other than at the meetings, teamwork is of limited necessity other than from a “big hat” organisation view of being ‘contributing corporate citizens’.

From a personal point of view, each participant will want to feel accepted and part of the group at the meetings.  It is important that the meetings are inclusive and allow members to have a voice as well as a presence.  If a member leaves a meeting feeling excluded or rejected, poor performance will usually result and may lead to them leaving the organisation or worse, passing on their feeling of rejection to their peers and subordinates with ensuing negative results.

Political

The political ramifications of planning/review meetings cannot be underestimated.  Who is included and who does not get invited sends a clear political message to the individuals and the people of the organisation.  Organisers must ask “What is the specific input each person will give to the meeting and is each of the critical elements of the business properly represented?”

Once the appropriate representation is decided, the agenda and interaction in the meeting will also provide political signals.  Does one area of the business get inordinate attention demonstrating that they are “part of the ‘in-crowd’”?  Are there individuals that work to dominate the meeting or seek favour of the more senior management?  If so, how are they handled?  Are they allowed, or worse, encouraged, to drive the agenda of the meeting?  Do clear “favourites” exist who are treated differently to the rest?  Are “hidden agendas” apparent and not exposed?  Are “factions” formed but not addressed in the meetings?

The Planning/review meetings must demonstrate a politically neutral position with the correct representation of the various parts of the organisation.  It is human nature to practice politics but it is up to the leader to ensure that there is a clear balance between the aspirations of the individuals and the good of the organisation.  A fair but firm stance is required.  Meetings that leave individuals feeling that they have been “out manoeuvred” politically will have a detrimental effect that may be imperceptible immediately after the meeting but grow into major issues over time if left unaddressed, especially if subsequent meetings reinforce the feeling of being on the political ‘outer’.

Cultural

It is this area that is most widely underestimated.  Do the meetings reflect the Values that are either explicitly stated or intrinsic in the Vision/Mission statement?  The planning/review meetings are a key indicator of the culture of the organisation.  It is not just the agenda and the events that occur at the meetings that are important culturally, but the signals that are sent surrounding the entire event, including expenditure, after meeting dinners, location, transport etc.

This is best illustrated by a hypothetical example.

The XYZ Inc organisation has stated values that include:

“…XYZ Inc is focused on providing market leading products and services to our customers whilst returning excellent results to our stakeholders.  Our people are our most important asset.  We strive to provide them with a safe and enjoyable work environment that enables them to grow in line with the company whilst enjoying an appropriate work/life balance.  We spend the company’s money as if it were our own and treat everyone fairly with reward and recognition for achievement being a core value.  We do not discriminate against any group or individual based on their gender, beliefs or background and seek to be excellent corporate citizen. …”

The organisation has had a tough year operating under difficult market circumstances and has incurred significant losses.  A planning meeting is held to formulate a strategy and objectives that will address the situation and effect a ‘turn around’ in the ensuing year.

To enable ‘free thinking’ the meeting is booked at a five star hotel in a beach resort requiring all of the attendees to travel for a day to get there.  Due to the need to trim expenses, manufacturing, customer service and HR are not invited because manufacturing is meeting its production targets, customer service revenues are ahead of target and HR is considered to be a non-revenue generating cost centre.  The expense of bringing these managers cannot be justified.

The senior executive members are booked to fly First Class and have the best level of accommodation available at the resort.  The administration staff are booked into a three star hotel next to the resort with the remainder of attendees required to share rooms to save costs.

Other than the Executive Assistant, the meeting consists of men.  The dinner after the first day of the meeting is held at a ‘two hat’ restaurant after which the men proceed to a “gentlemen’s club” and imbibe until the early hours.

The following day, which commences late due to the state of the men following their sojourn at the ‘gentlemen’s club’, the strategy, objectives and actions are defined.  The decision is taken that the company will retrench staff in manufacturing due to low demand for certain products, restructure the sales department to facilitate a newly created executive role for one of the State sales managers (who happens to be related to the CEO) and the CFO will investigate the outsourcing of the HR function with a view to cost saving.  Customer service will also be investigated to see if it can be outsourced or sold to increase profitability for the company or improve the balance sheet due to the sale.

After the meeting the CEO sends an e-mail to staff informing them that management has been considering the future of the company, that he is happy to report that there is now a clear strategy in place that will return the company to profit by the end of the year, that there is no need for alarm on anyone’s part and that they will be informed of any significant actions prior to them being enacted.

One month later the retrenchments in manufacturing begin under the management of the newly appointed outsource HR provider and negotiations are at an advanced stage with an outsourcer for the Service department…

Thankfully this is an extreme example and does not resemble any real situation…or does it?  No doubt there will be some aspects here that each of us can recall experiencing or associate with in reality.

Clearly the stated values bear no resemblance to the actions of the management team at the planning meeting.  The values are aimed at ensuring a culture of working toward market success through customer satisfaction whilst ensuring return to the stakeholders, building a strong organisation through staff enablement and satisfaction, fairness, equality, frugality etc.  The meeting sends signals that are diametrically opposed to the values and demonstrates that the culture is one of “do as we say, not what we do”.  A culture of distrust will prevail, with an attitude of “it is every man for them self” and that it pays to be part of the politically connected ‘in-crowd’.  There can be little doubt that the demise of this hypothetical company would be swift.

Well organised meetings that do not parallel the hypothetical case above can still have adverse cultural impact.  For example, if the senior executive demonstrates an autocratic demeanour where attendees are only able to speak when they are spoken to or people are not prepared to speak for fear of being made to look foolish the attendees will take this attitude away with them and it will most likely begin to show in the culture with an autocratic style of management becoming wide-spread.  Similarly, if the senior management don’t take things seriously in the meeting and only partially ‘buy in’ to the plan, that will manifest itself as a ‘half hearted’ culture that is not committed to achieving the required results.

Essentially, the planning/review meetings are a forum that set the scene for the operation of the organisation in every aspect from hard business metrics with associated activities set to achieve them through to how the organisation will operate due to the human aspects of social behaviour, politics and culture.

So how does the management of an organisation ensure that planning and review meetings achieve the desired results in both the business metrics and the all-important human aspects?  First and foremost, the whole process must be viewed as an opportunity to provide clear leadership that is in line with the stated Vision, Mission and Values to achieve the organisations Purpose.

It is often said that the problem is that there are too many meetings.  Given the above, the key point is that there are not too many meetings, but the appropriate number of meetings that cover each of the areas below:

• Have an explicit, relevant purpose that is related to the organisation’s Vision, Mission, Values and Purpose.
  If these are not clearly written, displayed and universally understood, the first meeting(s) that should be held is to ensure that these are “owned” by senior management who ensure that their people understand them and work toward achieving them on a daily basis.
• They are conducted in the appropriate manner with professional facilitation as required and clear minutes that are rapidly distributed after the meeting.
  Depending on the gravity of the meeting, it is highly recommended that external professional facilitation is used.  This allows all attendees, including the originator of the meeting (Senior executive, CEO, MD, GM et al), to focus on the subject matter, not the process of running the meeting.  The facilitator may be able to perform a dual function if they have expertise in the areas of focus for the meeting and especially if they are well experienced in running organisations and dealing with difficult situations.
  As with all good meetings, a person not involved as a participant of the meeting should be present to document the proceedings, record action items, owners, time frames etc, then distribute the minutes as soon as practical to the participants and any other recipients after the meeting.  These minutes will form the basis for measuring performance against commitments during the meeting.
• The necessary people attend and actively contribute.
  As covered previously, it is not only necessary to have people from the parts of the business that may be perceived to be the ‘problem areas’ but also others from areas that form part of the total system that is the business.  Aside from ensuring that the appropriate people are there to maximise the human aspects affect, often insightful input can be gained from those outside the problem area and creative suggestions on how to arrive at innovative cross functional solutions can evolve.
• The attendees are aware of what is expected of them in advance.
  All too often, people are invited to meetings but not given enough information regarding the expectations of them and how their input will enable positive outputs.  Where possible, detail of the content required for presentations or reports should be explicitly stated.  If the agenda is purely ‘free form’ and no pre-prepared input is required, this too must be made clear.  Valuable time is wasted by people invited to meetings who put in a great deal of time and effort to prepare presentations, only to find that upon attendance there is no requirement or time allocated for them to present or their preparation is not relevant to the discussion.
• They are given appropriate notice so that they are prepared.
  Similar to giving notice of what is required, sufficient time for preparation must be given.  Often the day to day business makes it difficult to prepare for planning/review meetings.  This is manageable provided there is sufficient time allocated prior to the meeting.  ‘Short notice meetings’ often provide less than adequate outcomes.
• The meetings are well run with adherence to the agenda and strict management of the time.
  This is as much a cultural aspect as business efficiency.  If a planning meeting cannot be run properly with each contributor demonstrating discipline in providing appropriate input in a timely manner then the indicators are that they will not be able to provide appropriate results in a timely manner in their usual duties.  A culture of tardiness or haphazard delivery will be seen to be accepted and this will be carried into the work place and evolve into the culture.  Acceptance of inefficient meetings by leaders will likewise result in this attitude being translated into the culture
• What will be done and by who as a result of the meeting is defined.
  Planning/review meetings without defined outcomes that are allocated to “owners” are simply a social gathering.  A lack of allocated action items will leave the attendees wondering why the meeting was held and confused as to what they should do next.  At best they will make up their own actions which may or may not be in line with others, may be out of synch with the required strategy and may be enacted too early or too late.  At worst, they will do nothing and the meeting will be seen as a total waste of time and money.
• How the resulting activities/outcomes will be measured and the time for completion is clear and agreed.
  The general maxim of “you can’t manage what you can’t measure” applies.  Allocation of tasks without determining how they will be measured leaves the owner to their own devices to subjectively determine if they are on track with their activities.  There can be no better outcome from a meeting than for each participant to leave with an agreed set of actions that have clear metrics for success and time frames for completion and review.
• How the results will be reviewed is set.
  The method of review of progress with the actions must be defined.  This will vary depending on the activity but the appropriate review method must be defined and agreed.  This may be by individual review between the owner and their manager or it may be at the next scheduled review meeting.  Setting the review method ensures that the participants are very clear that they will be able to report on their progress/results and receive feedback in a predetermined manner
• Dates are set and agreed for follow up meetings.
  This is an adjunct to setting the process for review.  Setting follow up meeting dates (if necessary) means that everyone is clear as to when an overall review will take place and gives an indication of the time frame that is allocated for producing the required results.
  The outcomes of the meeting are communicated to the stake holders (owners, customers, staff and community) as appropriate.
  Communication to the greater constituency is crucial.  There will be matters that have been discussed that for various reasons cannot be shared outside the planning meeting.  Naturally these will be treated in confidence but as much information that will assist the people and enable them to align their activities to execute the chosen strategy should be shared with the organisation as soon as possible after the meeting.  This may take the form of a “Town Hall” meeting where the senior executive that convened the meeting informs the people of the general outcome then follows up with a news letter (or “From the Executive’s desk” e-mail etc) and finally in various operational meetings between the participants and their teams.

Conclusion

Planning meetings are a “dual edged sword”.

On the one hand, they are essential to developing a strategy to achieve the required results for the organisation.  They can be a very powerful weapon for the adept leader who uses them to set and agree the strategy/tactics/execution methods and to galvanise their lieutenants into a cohesive team that in turn provides clear direction to their people in the battle for market supremacy.

On the other hand, if badly implemented, they can destroy the organisation’s ability to compete because they may result in an organisation that consists of fragmented “silos” of people who are working hard but are unclear about where they are headed, spend their effort fighting internal political battles and feel de-motivated because the culture they experience is at odds with that of the stated values of the organisation that they joined.

By all means, hold Planning/strategy meetings, but be sure that they are your “sword that leads to market supremacy”.

Philip Belcher, CEO, LSE Consulting Pty Ltd