Seven minutes have passed since this meeting began, yet of the six people in the room, only three are talking with each other. Randy is fiddling with his new Blackberry e-mail device, Sharon is sorting some papers for an outside project, and Lisa is looking at her calendar for next month. Only half the people are engaged, the other half disengaged.

The meeting started with the Manager announcing that the VIP Project had come to a screeching halt last week and the customer was mighty upset. The current discussion was to determine who’s fault it was.

Try an alternative approach to opening the meeting. Distribute six 3×5 cards, one to each team member. Ask the following question, “At the end of this meeting, what do you hope to have accomplished? You have 45 seconds to write your response.”

Forty five seconds later, go around the table and have each person contribute their intention for the meeting. Write their responses on a flip chart. Now you have a good start for your meeting. Everyone is engaged, all six of them, focused on how they can solve the problem with the VIP Project.

PS. Make Randy check his Blackberry at the door. If you don’t, he will continue to be distracted by his new addiction. -TF

P.S. Join Executive Management Online, Orientation starts in 3 days.

Eight managers and a senior VP sit around the table, this table of Eager Beavers, Vacationers and Hostages. What will prevent them from participating? What will drive them to contribute with enthusiasm?

“Houston, we have a problem!!” booms the senior VP. Enter FEAR stage right. The VP has just raised the spectre of fear. Here’s the question, “Does the way you state the problem have anything to do with the way people approach the solution?”

I could see the Face of Fear as I looked around the room. The silent responses were predictable. The darting eyes spoke volumes. Beneath the whisper level, emotions pounded.

• It wasn’t my fault, (was it?)
• It couldn’t have been my fault, (could it?)
• It was supposed to happen that way, (wasn’t it?)
• Since it wasn’t my fault, it must have been Tim’s fault (right?)
• I didn’t approve that, (did I?)

Multiply those responses by the eight managers and then calculate what has been accomplished so far. What headway has been made toward solving the problem in Houston? Worse yet, if no headway has been made, what direction is everyone looking?

Does the way you state the problem have anything to do with the way people approach the solution? The mindset around the table is looking for blame, a scapegoat, something, anything to deflect responsibility for the problem in Houston. Everyone is checking out, the quicker the better, last one standing holds the bag. Disengage, no eye contact, pass the buck, Chuck.

As the Manager, you don’t know who has the idea that is going to save the day. You cannot afford to have a single person disengage from the meeting. You need full engagement from everyone in the room for the entire meeting. One idea, one phrase, one twisted word may trigger the solution.

Does the way you state the problem have anything to do with the way people approach the solution? Take the problem and create a positive question that points toward the solution.

HCW?… HCW?… How Can We?… How Can We increase sales in our Houston territory? Take the problem and create a positive question that points toward the solution. Now, look around the room. You will find positive engagement. It is impossible not to. (Sorry, for the double negative.)

A bit of science. The human mind cannot “not answer” a question. (Another double negative.) The way the human brain is wired, when presented with a question, it is impossible for the mind to do anything other than search for the answer. If you want to engage the mind, ask it a question. If you want to engage a team, ask them a question. If you want to engage a team to solve a problem, state the problem as a postive question that points toward the solution. HCW? How Can We…? —TF

I looked around the room at the management team. It was a ragtag team, like most companies I work with, no starched white shirts here. The meeting had been convened to solve a nagging problem out on the plant floor. For the past two weeks, an elusive product defect had been showing up, but only detected right prior to shipping. This team of eight included representatives from all the major production areas as well as the VP of Operations. As I surveyed this motley crew, I couldn’t help but wonder, “Which person would have the insight, the brilliant idea that would save the day?”

This group was not unlike most classes I teach, where predictably, there are three types of participants. The first type of person always shows up early, helps to arrange the classroom, sits on the edge of their chair and whenever I ask a question, raises their hand, waving frantically for my attention. This is the person I call the Eager Beaver.

The second type of person is never early, but never late. I call this person the vacationer. They are very happy to be in class, because after all, they are not back in their cubicle at work. Responding to a discussion, sometimes they will participate, sometimes they won’t, doesn’t really matter to them, because, after all, they are on vacation.

The third type of person is precisely punctual, sits in the back of the room with their arms folded, daring any person around to engage them in anything, as if to say, “Just try to teach me something!!” This is the person I call the hostage.

Which one of these three is going to have the insight, the brilliant idea that is going to save the day?

It might be the Eager Beaver, perhaps the vacationer, might it be the hostage? For the manager, here is the dilemma. You don’t know. You don’t know which one is going to save the day. This is the reason no manager can afford to have a single team member disengaged. We need maximum participation from every team member. No coasting in my meetings. Everybody plays.

How often do we sit in meetings, watching people check out? They surreptitiously check e-mail on their Blackberry when they think no one is looking. They have one ear open to the meeting, one eyed glancing at a report they were supposed to review yesterday. One brazen team member even has their laptop open on the table, supposedly taking notes of the meeting. A sideways glance shows they are downloading e-mail and checking their horoscope.

Who is responsible for creating a different atmosphere, a different context? Who is responsible for creating the crucible in which a problem can be explored, alternatives generated and a solution selected? Who is responsible for creating the kind of meeting where each team member is engaged from beginning to end? Who indeed?

If that’s you in the mirror, the next question is “how?” How can you create maximum participation from every person in the room? How can you create full engagement? —TF

Dear Tom,

Question:
I thought I would try to just meet with my supervisors individually. That way I could compile all the information and make some sense out of it. It just isn’t working. By the time I get back to them, chaos has broken loose.

Response:
Management is about leverage and impact. One of the most powerful leverage tools you can use, as a manager, is calling a meeting. Working with team members one at a time has its place, but the leverage is 1:1. Don’t ever work 1:1 when you can help it. A manager cannot afford to work 1:1. A manager has to work at least 2:1, better 3:1 or 5:1. Gain 5 hours productivity from one hour’s work.

You are working with several supervisors on an individual basis, attempting to coordinate their schedules. Call a meeting, get them in the same room and have them coordinate with each other. The trap most managers fall into is the feeling that the manager must solve the problem. Listen carefully, write this down:

The manager does not have to solve the problem. The manager ONLY has to make sure the problem gets solved. Big difference. Think about it. The manager solving the problem requires:

1. The manager meets with each supervisor to collect a schedule familiar only to the supervisor.
2. The manager reviews the schedule to understand its current sequence, without the knowledge of required labor and materials.
3. The manager meets with three other supervisors to do the same thing.
4. The manager does some anlaysis to locate overlaps and gaps between the schedules.
5. The manager, without the benefit of knowing labor and materials, makes unilateral decisions to re-sequence production, preventing overlaps and filling in the gaps.
6. Everyone stands around wondering how far the manager had his head up his a*s when he made that decision.

Try this scenario:

1. The manager calls a meeting with the four supervisors who arrive with their schedules and knowledge of who is working today and what materials they have on hand.
2. The manager asks each supervisor to report on their intended production schedule, asking the other supervisors to listen for overlaps and gaps between the schedules.
3. The manager asks each supervisor, with their knowledge of who is working today and materials on hand, to re-sequence production to prevent overlaps, fill the gaps and meet the production needs of the Project Mgrs.
4. The manager adjourns the meeting.

Management is about leverage. Meetings are a powerful leverage tool. —TF