Allocating Action Items

One pattern frequently observed in meetings at all levels of the org chart is the act of allocating an action item to someone who then becomes its owner. In terms of a commonly used framework known as RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed), the action item's owner is usually regarded as "Responsible." [Smith 2005.2] We allocate action items to people in different ways. How people deal with their action items is determined, in part, by the way the items are allocated to them.

In what follows, We allocate action items to people in different ways.
How people deal with their action items is determined,
in part, by the way the items are allocated to them.I use the names Rachel or Robert (R for Resonsible) to refer to the person Responsible for the action item — in RACI terminology, the "doer." In some meetings, for some topics, someone is authorized to allocate action items. In other situations, no one person is so authorized, but the meeting Chair can nevertheless press an individual to accept an action item. In any case, I'll use the name Alfred (A for Allocator) to refer to the allocator.

In this post, I describe six different patterns of allocating action items, suggesting some of the risks associated with each.

Allocation in absentia

In this pattern, Rachel is absent from the meeting when Alfred allocates an action item to her. She's unaware of any discussion of the action item — not its history, nor its purpose, nor how difficult it might be, nor how urgently it might be needed. She'll need to determine all this background information — and, indeed, the very fact that she is now responsible — from those who were in attendance. And because people are people, some of the bits of information she gathers will likely conflict with other bits.

If an action item must be allocated to someone in absentia, it's best to manage the risk of post-meeting contradictions and confusions by documenting the meeting discussion in much greater detail than would otherwise occur.

Allocation without permission

To allocate an action item to Robert without his permission, Alfred adopts a humble tone and says something like, "Robert, I'm putting you down as lead on this, OK?" If Robert hasn't objected, and if he might not have had a chance to object, he cannot easily object now. If he does so at this point, he risks seeming to be uncooperative or — what's worse — seeming not to be a "team player." In effect, Alfred has manipulated Robert into accepting the action item.

In such cases, Robert might not have the time or skills or background to undertake the item. But Alfred has put Robert in a position in which Robert can't offer reasons why he (Robert) is a poor choice to take the action item. The risk is that there might be real reasons why Robert is a poor choice, and why Robert might be unable to give the action item the attention it requires.

Allocation over objections

Compared to allocating without permission, allocating an action item to Rachel over her objections is even less likely to produce the desired outcome. Objections publicly expressed are almost always valid — and well known to be so — because the objector pays a high social price for attempting to decline the allocation for flimsy reasons. That's why objectors express their reservations only when they feel they will be seen as reluctant truth-tellers. The likelihood that allocation over objections will produce a disappointing outcome is high.

But there are even higher costs associated with allocations over objections. Allocation over objectives places at risk the relationship between Rachel and Alfred. And that can affect future work for everyone.

Allocation by coercion

Facing objections, some allocators turn to coercion when rational or emotional pleading fails. In this instance, the risks of damage to relationships is even greater than is the risk associated with allocation over objections. It's greater because everyone who witnesses Alfred's use of coercion — and everyone who hears about it — must consider the possibility that Alfred might apply coercion to anyone.

Moreover, once Alfred employs coercion in any situation, everyone is aware that he might use it again. People become reluctant to register objections to receiving action items. They might even become reluctant to withhold permission when Alfred "offers" them action items. The result is that people are more likely to accept action items that they have little capacity — or capability — to discharge effectively.

Allocation off line

To limit public exposure of Alfred's use of manipulative or coercive tactics, he elects to conduct action item allocation "negotiations" off line, one-on-one. This strategy can work in the sense that it does limit the risk of damage to the relationship between Alfred and Robert. But another risk arises.

When Alfred allocates action items privately, errors such as duplication, dependency, ambiguity and schedule conflict are less likely to be detected because the negotiations are conducted out of view of the rest of the group. When the allocation conversation is public, the rest of the group can raise questions if they detect an error in the framing of the action item or in the allocation choice.

Allocation as a motivator

To encourage Robert to accept an allocation voluntarily, without objection, Alfred might offer Robert an incentive. Incentives can be in the form of a promise to relieve Robert of unpleasant assignments, or a promise to assign him to a task he prefers. These sorts of incentives are known as extrinsic motivators. Using them can create an impression of having "bought" the cooperation of the action item recipient. And that can contribute to an unpleasant atmosphere surrounding the transaction.

Extrinsic motivators come with a price. For example, using an extrinsic motivator in one situation increases the likelihood that the receiver of the action item will expect something similar — or even more "motivating" — in a future similar situation. Once the precedent is set, setting it aside could be difficult.

Last words

When the person designated as Responsible for the action item has been manipulated, coerced, or "bought," there is a risk that the action item, once allocated, won't "stay allocated." Although the responsible person might not be passionate about executing the action, they might be passionate about finding a way to get it reallocated to someone else.  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!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.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.

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:

Appreciate Differences

In group problem solving, diversity of opinion and healthy, reasoned debate ensure that our conclusions take into account all the difficulties we can anticipate. Lock-step thinking — and limited debate — expose us to the risk of unanticipated risk.

Problem Not-Solving

Group problem solving is a common purpose of meetings. Although much group problem solving is constructive, some patterns are useless or worse. Here are some of the more popular ways to engage in problem not-solving.

Seventeen Guidelines About Workplace Bullying

Bullying is a complex social pattern. Thinking clearly about bullying is difficult in the moment because our emotions can distract us. Here are some short insights about bullying that are easy to remember in the moment.

Meta-Debate at Work

Workplace discussions sometimes take the form of informal debate, in which parties who initially have different perspectives try to arrive at a shared perspective. Meta-debate is one way things can go wrong.

Premortems

Premortems are simulated retrospective examinations of future events, conducted as if those future events had already occurred. By combining the benefits of psychological safety with a shift in temporal perspective, they offer advantages for planners.

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

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