Flexible Queue Management

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.

Timekeeping

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.

Digressions

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.

Last words

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 welcome

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.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

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.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Meetings:

Allocating Airtime: II

Much has been said about people who don't get a fair chance to speak at meetings. We've even devised processes intended to more fairly allocate speaking time. What's happening here?

Issues-Only Team Meetings

Time spent in regular meetings is productive to the extent that it moves the team closer to its objectives. Because uncovering and clarifying issues is more productive than distributing information or listening to status reports, issues-only team meetings focus energy where it will help most.

Disagreements in Virtual Meetings

Disagreements about substance can sometimes become unpleasant. And it seems that the likelihood of this happening is greater in virtual meetings. Six tactics can help keep things calm enough for groups to work better together.

On Working Breaks in Meetings

When we convene a meeting to work a problem, we sometimes find that progress is stalled. Taking a break to allow a subgroup to work part of the problem can be key to finding simple, elegant solutions rapidly. Choosing the subgroup is only the first step.

Antipatterns for Time-Constrained Communication: I

Knowing how to recognize just a few patterns that can lead to miscommunication can be helpful in reducing the incidence of problems. Here is Part I of a collection of communication antipatterns that arise in technical communication under time pressure.

See also Effective Meetings and Effective Meetings for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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