Large meetings (30 or more) are more orderly and productive when we create and manage a queue of people who want to contribute to the conversation. Usually a first-in-first-out or polling scheme works well enough. Small meetings of five or fewer usually do well without formal queue management. But for middle-sized meetings of more than five but fewer than 30 people, rigorous queue management is less effective than more flexible approaches.
For example, consider a discussion of a rapidly evolving situation that requires a group decision. Suppose Participant Alpha is in the midst of offering a status report that's based on information that Alpha acquired last night. And suppose that overnight the situation evolved significantly and that Participant Beta, who is currently fourth in the speaker queue, has more up-to-date information. If the group follows a rigorous queue management protocol, the participants ahead of Beta in the queue will speak before Beta. The group will be wasting its time if what Beta has to report renders the contributions of those intervening speakers irrelevant or no longer accurate.
Flexible queue management enables the group to gain the benefits of a speaker queue while limiting the risk of wasting time or propagating misinformation.
To make queue management flexible, the group can agree in advance that participants who want to offer certain kinds of contributions can ask the queue manager for permission to "jump" the queue. The request must be brief, and it must consist of a predetermined stock phrase, such as "Process check," or "Background request." Ultimately the queue manager decides whether or not to grant the request after hearing a bit more about its nature from the requestor. What follows is a little catalog of requests and offers that might justify jumping the queue.
- If the meeting has a written agenda (shockingly, many do not), and if the agenda items have scheduled durations (also shockingly, many do not), it's possible to gauge how well the group is keeping to its schedule. And that information can help the group make adjustments if time is slipping by.
- But that requires Flexible queue management enables
the group to gain the benefits of
a speaker queue while limiting
the risk of wasting time
or propagating misinformationthat someone keep an eye on the clock. That's the job of the timekeeper. As the allotted time for the current agenda item drains down, with much to discuss still on the table, the timekeeper can alert the group. Then the group can decide how to adjust.
- Among the most prolific time wasters in meetings are digressions. They're so difficult to detect that appointing a Designated Digression Detector (DDD) is sometimes the only effective way to limit the incidence of digressions. (See "First Aid for Painful Meetings," Point Lookout for October 24, 2001) The nature of digressions can be wide-ranging. Changes of topic perhaps come to mind first. But speculation about the current topic is also a digression, as is trying to solve a problem when problem solving isn't on the agenda.
- The DDD is authorized to interrupt any part of the conversation to suggest that a digression might be underway. The group then decides whether or not to return to its intended activity.
- Process checks
- Any meeting participant can call for a process check at any time. The purpose of a process check is to determine whether all meeting participants are conforming to previously agreed-upon norms of behavior. Examples of these norms are treating each other with respect, refraining from over-talking or interrupting each other, or preparing for the meeting appropriately.
- If the group determines that there has been an infraction of some kind, it then decides how to deal with it. One possibility, for example, is adjourning the meeting if participants are unprepared. Another: taking a 10-minute break if some participants have engaged in a heated exchange.
- Background, status, definitions, and corrections
- With respect to certain topics, some participants might be less conversant than others. They might be unaware of important information, such as background, status, or definitions. Or they might not have the latest information. A brief summary of this material might be useful. Agree in advance that participants who need such a summary can interrupt the proceedings to request background or status.
- Likewise, agree in advance that the right to interrupt is also available to those who are familiar with the topic, and who suspect that others might be unaware of the more recent or detailed developments. Or misinformation might be in circulation, and a correction can save much of the time of the meeting. Those who are better informed can then offer to brief the group before it pursues the topic further.
These tactics can provide substantial benefits for meetings that must address controversial, unfamiliar, or highly dynamic issues. But don't try them for the first time when addressing such issues. Learning how to interrupt without offending can be a bit tricky. Practice does help. Top Next Issue
The article you've been reading is an archived issue of Point Lookout, my weekly newsletter. I've been publishing it since January, 2001, free to all subscribers, over the Web, and via RSS. You can help keep it free by donating either as an individual or as an organization. You'll receive in return my sincere thanks — and the comfort of knowing that you've helped to propagate insights and perspectives that can help make our workplaces a little more human-friendly. More
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Effective Meetings:
- Let Me Finish, Please
- We use meetings to exchange information and to explore complex issues. In open discussion, we tend to
interrupt each other. Interruptions can be disruptive, distracting, funny, essential, and frustratingly
common. What can we do to limit interruptions without depriving ourselves of their benefits?
- Remote Facilitation in Synchronous Contexts: II
- Facilitators of synchronous distributed meetings — meetings that occur in real time, via telephone
or video — encounter problems that facilitators of face-to-face meetings do not. Here's Part II
of a little catalog of those problems, and some suggestions for addressing them.
- Rationalizing Creativity at Work: II
- Creative thinking at work can be nurtured or encouraged, but not forced or compelled. Leaders who try
to compel creativity because of very real financial and schedule pressures rarely get the results they
seek. Here are examples of tactics people use in mostly-futile attempts to compel creativity.
- Favor Symmetric Virtual Meetings
- Virtual meetings are notorious for generating more frustration than useful output. One cause of the
difficulties is asymmetry in the way we connect to virtual meetings.
- Barriers to Accepting Truth: I
- In workplace debates, a widely used strategy involves informing the group of facts or truths of which
some participants seem to be unaware. Often, this strategy is ineffective for reasons unrelated to the
credibility of the person offering the information. Why does this happen?
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming November 30: Avoiding Speed Bumps: II
- Many of the difficulties we encounter when working together don't create long-term harm, but they do cause delays, confusion, and frustration. Here's Part II of a little catalog of tactics for avoiding speed bumps. Available here and by RSS on November 30.
- And on December 7: Reaching Agreements in Technological Contexts
- Reaching consensus in technological contexts presents special challenges. Problems can arise from interactions between the technological elements of the issue at hand, and the social dynamics of the group addressing that issue. Here are three examples. Available here and by RSS on December 7.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info