Making IT Meetings Easy

It is very interesting (and sometimes frustrating) for me to participate in IT conference calls where a bunch of really smart people can't seem to reach consensus on anything. The initial intention of the call was to solve a problem or talk about a technology direction. The organizer presents an agenda, meeting invite, and orchestrates the kick-off of the meeting. From there, these calls descend into complete chaos at different rates depending on the personalities in play. For example, any of the following personality types can be on these calls: "passion guy", "risk averse girl", "need to have it organized guy", "rambler girl", "tangent guy", "big picture girl", and "use acronyms and buzz words that nobody gets guy".

All of these people are highly intelligent and all bring something to the table. The problem is that they are in support, engineering, QA, sales, and marketing. Each has expertise and a vested interest in their slice of the technology. They see the problem through how it affects them and their team. This is a natural and appropriate response for the daily grind, but can be disastrous for brainstorming issues. For example, the backend engineer does not understand why a 22 year old marketing major can't login via SSH and pkill -HUP the application. Likewise, that 22 year old marketing major can't understand that implementing that "Green Button" in the UI will take a complete rewrite of the software code. The support guy freaks out when the professional services guy throws out a "custom work around". The sales team doesn't understand why the product manager can't have every feature built yesterday. If these calls go on too long, they turn into nothing more than product bashing, personal snipes, and power plays.

The following suggestions come from my own experience of both leading and being in the middle of these calls. These are techniques I use and they have been wildly successful in having productive meetings and navigating personalities.

Overcommunicate the context of the meeting

I start every meeting with the purpose and importance (what and why) of the call. From there, I describe in painful detail all history and conversations I have had with people leading up to the call. Moving on, I describe the boundaries of what we should and SHOULD NOT talk about on the call (this one is huge). Finally, I ask for understanding and buy in before we proceed. Does everyone have the right context?

This reduces so many common problems in meetings. For example, by providing the history, a passion guy or rambler (like me) won't go on a 5 minute rant without taking a breath only to realize that their idea was taken off the table weeks ago. For the tangent person, there is recourse to get them back on track when they go off. For the organized and risk averse, they have the structure needed to not panic and participate. The big picture girl won't boil the ocean. The acronym and buzz word guy will not criticize the big picture girl for coming up with a lame phrase like "boiling the ocean".

Lead with options

I try to come into every meeting with an option a, b, and c. These are not final outcomes, but grouping of thoughts. Chances are that you are meeting because there are multiple email threads and conversations tied up into a final outcome. By coming forward with simple options, all loose thoughts are now clearly organized and categorized for the participants. There is a frame of reference and an anchor for conversation. Our brains constantly do this naturally, why not preempt chaos with some organization? My options always include 4 standard sections: overview, reward, risk, and cost.

All subsequent conversation in the meeting is framed around the options. People all have a common reference point. From here, each personality type can exercise their talents, but do it from within the framework of an option. For example, the passionate guy can get riled up about option a. The tangent guy really has nowhere to go and can bounce lots of good ideas within a single option. The risk averse gal can visualize and compare risk across all the options. The big picture gal can now produce more tangible thoughts anchored in a viable option. The acronym guy is locked into using the common verbiage everyone understands.


Ultimately, the options are changed somewhat with the input of the team. Once everyone agrees on the options, then you can exercise the most democratic form of decision making - a vote. Even if someone does not like the option selected, at least they had a say.

Be bullish on follow-up

I have come to the conclusion that I will be the keeper and police officer of action items for other people following a meeting. I will be setup for failure if I send out a summary,  assign tasks to people, and then chase individuals down. In order to manage my own time better and that of others, I immediately send out follow-up meeting invites for one on one or multiple people. I have found that a meeting invite on a peer's calendar is a great reminder for them. It is like pushing a task onto their todo list scribbled in their notepad.

The bottom line here is that meetings can be so much more productive with context and structure. You spend far less time having personality collisions and far more time leveraging the strengths of the people in those personalities. As always, I am sure there is someone smarter than me who has this down in a book or process with a clever acronym. I should introduce him to acronym guy.