It was over 25 years ago that the psychologists William Titus and Garold Stasser first published their studies about how people communicate in meetings. A quarter of a century on, their findings will still have a sense of familiarity to many.
Their studies concluded that a significant proportion of time in meetings is spent listening to people tell each other what everyone already knows. Alarmingly, they also discovered that individuals who possess genuinely new information often fail to alert the rest of the group to it. As a result, the decisions that are made tend to be at best OK and, at worst, pretty poor indeed.
So why do meetings like this occur and what can be done to make them more productive?
One potential reason why so much time is spent discussing items that are already known to others is the very fact that they are already well known. There is safety and comfort in discussing the familiar.
Another reason that can cause 'Groundhog Day' meetings to occur is the fact that people will often turn up to meetings having already made up their minds about what should and shouldn't be done. Unfortunately, however, the information they use in order to come to their decisions is often similar to that available to everyone else. As a result, the same discussions come up time and time again.
So what can be done to persuade meeting attendees to freely offer information and communicate effectively so that meetings are as productive as they can be?
One of the simplest and most effective ways is to ask people to submit information before the meeting. As a result, contributions are less likely to be influenced by the 'group think' of others.
Another approach is to recognise the influence senior group members often have over others. When those in higher positions are the first to contribute, more junior members will often follow the same line even if the boss is wrong. Highlighting people's individual expertise at the start of a meeting means that everyone will be more aware of what everyone else knows and, more importantly, what they don't.
A third way is to recognise the value of the humble checklist. Much as pilots will employ a checklist as part of their pre-flight activities, there is much to be said for businesses considering the items that should be on their meeting checklist. Are the right people in attendance? Is the balance of expertise correct? Do people know why they are there and what needs to be accomplished?
It can also be useful to invite someone to your meetings who will positively dissent from the popular view. Studies have shown that having a genuine dissenter in the room is often more productive in generating new creative approaches and ideas than simply asking someone to play devil's advocate for the sake of it.
Steve Martin is co-author of Yes! 50 Secrets from the Science of Persuasion. Test your persuasive skills at scienceofyes.com
BUY IT HERE: Yes! 50 Secrets from the Science of Persuasion
blog comments powered by
