Our Process Standards for Effective and Productive Meetings (part 1 of 2)

Part one of two.

Meetings typically suck.

Every study that is done on meetings, formal or informal, reveals what we already know: they're unproductive, a waste of time, and something people don't look forward to.

I believe there's a simple reason: most companies lack process standards to make their meetings consistently effective and productive.

source: Atlassian

A SHARED EXPERIENCE

In our work at The Junto Institute, we not only have internal meetings, we're in the business of holding meetings for others. In fact, we've held over 2,000 of them to-date: roundtables, advisory board meetings, brainstorming sessions, mentoring meetings, peer forums, leadership meetings, classes, and others.

Because bringing people together at meetings is our core "product" and our clients depend on us to make good use of their time, we've invested a great deal of our time over the years to make this product consistently effective and productive.

We know we've been on the right track because many of our members actually express their appreciation for the meetings themselves. Better yet, some have told us that they look forward to them.

I believe it's because we have set and consistently follow standards for every type of meeting we hold, both in-person and remote. Those standards fall into separate categories, each of which will be the subject of this two-part series.

This article will focus on process standards to optimize the use of the meeting time. Part two will focus on participation standards to provide guidance for how people show up, engage, and interact.

My objective isn't to tell you what to do or to even get you to adopt what we do. Instead, it's simply to share what our meeting standards are so that you might be inspired to consider standards for your own. And a word of caution: standards don't mean a thing if they're not followed consistently.

source: Atlassian

BEFORE THE MEETING

In my experience, the pre-meeting work that is done for most meetings is simply about scheduling and setting an agenda. In our work at Junto, we go beyond that. Here are the standards we have.

Stakeholder Prep

When we hold meetings that materially involve other people, we have at least one prep session beforehand. I believe this is the foundation of an effective meeting because it makes us all think about how we want to make use of the time. 

Obviously, this requires additional time but we've found that what is covered at these prep sessions helps make the actual meeting more effective, productive, and focused.

For example, when we hold an advisory board meeting, we have a 15-30 minute prep call with the company's leadership team to discuss what they propose as agenda items. It forces the thought process and a conversation, something that doesn't happen if this was left to email exchanges. Furthermore, at least half the time, the agenda items we start with evolve into something different because of the conversation; better that we figure that out ahead of time rather than frustrating the meeting attendees by not addressing the real issues.

Sharing Agenda & Materials

It's one thing to craft an agenda but it's another thing to actually publish it ahead of time. Putting it out there is taking accountability: the meeting host or facilitator is effectively making a promise to execute the plan.

We share the agenda either in the calendar invite or on the Zoom page. By doing so, we're transferring accountability from us to the attendees if they're wondering about the purpose of the meeting. The proof is in the pudding: rarely, if ever, have I shown up to a Junto meeting of any kind and someone asked, "Why are we meeting?"

Beyond the agenda, we also share materials (when possible) and ask attendees to review them in advance. To me, nothing is a bigger waste of time and money than holding a meeting at which everyone together is reviewing reports, analyses, narratives, etc. in silence rather than engaging in a conversation about them.

When materials are shared, we then schedule a brief period at the start of the meeting (shown in the agenda) for clarifying questions. The reality is that some people won't or can't review the materials so they spend that time quickly scanning them. But now they know they're under pressure to not only do that but also process the information to see if they have questions. Again, it becomes shared accountability.

Reminders

Even though calendar invites are now ubiquitous, we send reminders for virtually all our meetings, for three reasons:

1. To reduce the likelihood that someone is a last-minute no-show, canceling because they have other important things to do. We noticed years ago that when we didn't send reminders, no-shows or cancellations were more frequent.
2. To give them one more chance to prepare, review the agenda, and go over materials that were sent in advance.
3. Most importantly, to do what "re-mind" is supposed to: bring the meeting back into their consciousness, especially if the invite was sent weeks earlier.

That alone is worth the tiny amount of time it takes to send a reminder. And with today's technology options, calendar reminders are easy to automate.

DAY OF THE MEETING

Because we are now a fully remote company, I'll share our current standards for video meetings and occasionally dip back into what we did for in-person ones.

Starting the Meeting

To begin, the standard for our team is to show up 10-15 minutes before the start (in-person it was 15-30 to manage the physical space), and to also ask speakers or special guests to do the same. This gives us a chance to confirm audio, video, screen-sharing, and the speaker's physical setting (we've had to ask some to close window shades, turn on/off lights, adjust monitor height, etc.).

We then try to start on time. In our experience, far more people show up late to video meetings than they used to in-person (when we always started on time), simply because many have back-to-back calls or experience technical issues. Based on how many people are present, we use our judgment in deciding whether to provide 2-3 more minutes for the rest to show up.

Because most of our meetings are not internal, we start with a quick round of introductions (even though people's names are apparent on video or name tents) so that everyone is welcomed, acknowledged, and seen. If there is a speaker, the facilitator briefly comments on why they were invited and their history with Junto. We incorporated this years ago, and discovered it helped create a connection between guests and attendees. It seems like a small thing but, in my opinion, goes a long way in building togetherness and intimacy.

Running the Meeting

Every one of our meetings has a facilitator, typically someone from our team, to run the session. There is also a second team member, often behind the scenes, to provide support and take notes.

Remember the agenda? The facilitator is accountable for following the agenda, and making timely transitions from one item to the next. Perhaps the most valuable standard for our facilitator to practice is ensuring that every person in attendance has an opportunity to speak. We do this primarily during open dialogue or question/answer periods, trying to create a setting of equity and acknowledgement of all.

The other critical standard we practice is wrapping up the meeting with enough time for the closing. As someone who has played the facilitator hundreds of times, this has often been the hardest standard to meet. I've had to gently interrupt speakers or attendees to wrap up their statements which is never enjoyable. Fortunately, because everyone knows that we have and follow standards, they respect the process and respond with grace.

Closing the Meeting

In addition to starting on time, one of our standards is ending on time. To do that, however, requires very close management of time as we wrap things up.

Every one of our meetings has a closing period, ranging from 5-15 minutes (the latter is for meetings that go two hours). The closing periods vary a great deal so I'll only highlight the common standards:

1. Many of our meetings close with a summary of action items, shared by the people who are taking accountability for them.
2. We wrap up with a closing round of appreciations, when every attendee shares one thing they appreciate about the session, their day, or anything else that comes to mind.
3. We then administer some type of feedback tool. For video calls, we use a two-question poll, and for in-person meetings, we used a hard copy survey of 3-4 questions with comments.
4. When appropriate, such as recurring meetings, we either verbally announce the next meeting or set aside time to schedule it in the moment.

AFTER THE MEETING

Just because the meeting is over doesn't mean that our work is done which means we still have standards to meet.

First, when appropriate, we send a calendar invite immediately for the next meeting to avoid the possibility of someone scheduling another meeting during the agreed-upon time.

Second, we edit the notes that were taken at the meeting, and share the notes along with slide decks or materials with all attendees within 24 hours.

And third, our team organizes all meeting documents and materials in a Google Drive folder so they're easy for anyone on the team to find in the future.

MANAGING EXPECTATIONS

At the start of this article, I mentioned that many people in Junto have expressed appreciation for our meetings or even look forward to them. I believe it's because we set and follow the above standards, helping create a systemized process that powers each gathering.

By doing this over and over again, even when meetings have nothing in common with each other, they tend to create a consistent experience. That, to me, is what efficient and productive meetings are really about...an experience that can actually have high impact, be memorable, and be worth the time and cost for all.

Because I've already written a few articles on expectations and standards, I want to point out some beautiful irony here: by simply using standards for meetings, we actually have the power to manage other people's expectations.

In fact, this happens in virtually all cases of setting standards...much more to come on that in future articles.

Part two of this series is on participation standards.

What standards do you follow for meetings you host?
What standards have you experienced at other meetings?
Please share your responses below. 
And if you have questions on any of our standards or
want further detail, please share them below and I'll respond.