I don’t like what most people use as an agenda
Why?
- It's usually a list of content, maybe with some timings
- It doesn’t help people understand the job to be done and how they can best do it together
- It doesn’t scope the conversation and head off obvious rabbit holes
- It can be high control (can’t deviate from it), unrealistic (can 7 people understand an issue, evaluate options and decide on a high quality course of action around one agenda item in 15 allotted minutes - unlikely)
- And worse, having an agenda feels like we’ve ticked off the process part. “We have an agenda. We’re good to go!”
Meeting time is a high intensity activity, consuming 100% of multiple people’s time and attention.
All of this above is a problem because human behaviour in groups can be poor (including polite but ineffective) if we haven’t created a strong enough ‘container’.
We need a design for the session, not a list of content to discuss.
We need a social contract to create a pop up team, not a list of content to discuss.
This matters so much more, now we are trying to empower teams and people and collaborate without hierarchy.
Command and control leadership made meeting a socially straight forward activity. A traditional agenda was good enough for this and appropriate for the way value was created.
Collaborative working is not socially straight forward. We need more scaffolding or invisible power structures and ‘stay safe in the tribe behaviour’ will always win.
Here's what to use instead.
Instead of an agenda, use the invitation and meeting opener to do 4 crucial social contracting jobs:
- Unify people around a specific purpose
Priya Parker explains that your purpose is your bouncer and your filter. You purpose orientates people around the kind of discussion you're going to have and how they can best contribute
- Scope what you will do and won’t do
This heads off obvious rabbit holes and creates a strong container. This could be about what ground you will/won’t cover or what stages you will won’t reach e.g. we will: understand the problem fully and understand everyone’s position on possible solutions but we won’t: make a decision today.
- Scaffold all this, helping people contribute fully and efficiently
The easiest way is to give the meeting a question to answer. I often use multiple questions in a sequence, to give the session a flow/shape/design.
Questions guide attention. Questions get you and me alongside each other, against the problem, not me against you. Humans are question-answering machines so give your meeting questions to answer.
- Set the tone - what styles and behaviours are welcome and needed; and which are not
Where and how to do this
I lay these out in the invitation (and check for agreement)
I share these again at the start (and check for agreement)
Sometimes, I turn these into a short session plan and share it with the email - like an agenda but better :-)
You can access my template for all of these here.
It’s MUCH harder to get someone out of a rabbit hole if the scope hasn’t been agreed in advance.
It’s MUCH easier to signpost meeting stages, if they are right up on the screen, front and centre.
It’s MUCH more effective when the group self-moderates because they already understand the ‘rules of the game’.
Let me know what you think - and how you handle the social contract of meetings.
|
