On Working Breaks in Meetings

An oft-repeated refrain in meetings is "Let's take a ten-minute break." The number of minutes varies, as does the reason for taking a break. The most common reason I've found for taking a break is suppressing toxic conflict. When the discussion gets heated enough, taking a break can seem like the only way to avoid even higher temperatures, and sometimes it actually works.

A less-often seen reason for taking a break is the need to think — a form of break I call a "working break." A working break is a useful choice when, for example, the meeting participants are working a problem, and a complicated but intriguing proposal has hit a snag. If several ideas seem to be capable of unsnagging the proposal, taking a working break can provide some quiet time to sort through those ideas to produce a workable solution.

Guidelines for working breaks

Because A working break is a useful choice when,
for example, the meeting participants
are working a problem, and a complicated
but intriguing proposal has hit a snagthe structure of a working break can affect its outcome, it's helpful to agree in advance how to use working breaks before you actually try one. Here are some tips for making working breaks productive.

Identify a small group of specialists

If the meeting as a whole (the "whole") hasn't resolved the issue, part of the problem might be that there are too many voices trying to help. Reducing the contributors to those who have special knowledge — a smaller group of specialists — might be the key to resolving the issue. To use this approach, consider conducting the specialist discussion privately, and then reporting results to the whole when the meeting reconvenes.

Give the specialists a flexible time limit

A time limit is useful for enabling those not selected as specialists to relax, or work on another task. A time limit also directs the specialists in selecting their path to a resolution. If they can't resolve the issue in the time allotted, they can report this to the whole to enable the meeting participants to extend the time or adjust the roster of specialists, or try a different approach.

Consider partial resolution a success

A partial resolution can be a partial success that leads to a complete resolution. When the specialists report back to the whole what they've been able to do, others in the meeting might then be able to see what the next steps might be. That clarity of vision might have been unavailable before.

Exploit parallelism if possible

In some cases, several snags might be preventing progress on the matter at hand. Dealing with them serially might work, but when the serial approach fails, consider parallelism, because the path around one snag might not be visible until the path around another is clear. And two snags might conspire to prevent resolution of either one. Clearing both snags might happen more quickly if two teams of specialists work in parallel.

Last words

When working breaks facilitate forward progress, they can prevent eruptions of toxic conflict. But they risk creating toxic conflict and personal competition by delegating problem resolution to small teams of specialists. When this delegation amounts to a reassignment of responsibility, the original bearers of that responsibility can experience a sense of rejection or being criticized. To mitigate this risk, include the original bearers of the responsibility in the specialist teams in a way that honors their contributions while recognizing the benefits of "fresh eyes."  Top    Next Issue

Do you spend your days scurrying from meeting to meeting? Do you ever wonder if all these meetings are really necessary? (They aren't) Or whether there isn't some better way to get this work done? (There is) Read 101 Tips for Effective Meetings to learn how to make meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot more rare. Order Now!

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:

Virtual Trips to Abilene

One dysfunction of face-to-face meetings is the Trip to Abilene, which leads groups to make decisions no members actually support. It can afflict virtual meetings, too, even more easily.

Nine Brainstorming Demotivators: I

The quality of the output of brainstorming sessions is notoriously variable. One source of variation is the enthusiasm of contributors. Here's Part I of a set of nine phenomena that can limit contributions to brainstorm sessions.

Brainstorming and Speedstorming: II

Recent research into the effectiveness of brainstorming has raised some questions. Motivated to examine alternatives, I ran into speedstorming. Here's Part II of an exploration of the properties of speedstorming.

Stone-Throwers at Meetings: I

One class of disruptions in meetings includes the tactics of stone-throwers — people who exploit low-cost tactics to disrupt the meeting and distract all participants so as to obstruct progress. How do they do it, and what can the meeting chair do?

Time Slot Recycling: The Risks

When we can't begin a meeting because some people haven't arrived, we sometimes cancel the meeting and hold a different one, with the people who are in attendance. It might seem like a good way to avoid wasting time, but there are risks.

See also Effective Meetings and Problem Solving and Creativity for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 3: Additive bias…or Not: II

Additive bias is a cognitive bias that many believe contributes to bloat of commercial products. When we change products to make them more capable, additive bias might not play a role, because economic considerations sometimes favor additive approaches. Available here and by RSS on July 3.

And on July 10: On Delegating Accountability: I

As the saying goes, "You can't delegate your own accountability." Despite wide knowledge of this aphorism, people try it from time to time, especially when overcome by the temptation of a high-risk decision. What can you delegate, and how can you do it? Available here and by RSS on July 10.

Coaching services

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