primary test of leadership

Grading the importance of various initiatives in an environment of finite resources is a primary test of leadership.

Derek Lidow

"A Better Way to Set Strategic Priorities," Harvard Business Review. February 13, 2017

how free was free?

When I took command of Benfold, I realized that no one, including me, is capable of making every decision. I would have to train my people to think and make judgments on their own. Empowering means defining the parameters in which people are allowed to operate, and then setting them free.

But how free was free? What were the limits? 

I chose my line in the sand. Whenever the consequences of a decision had the potential to kill or injure someone, waste taxpayers' money, or damage the ship, I had to be consulted. Short of those contingencies, the crew was authorized to make their own decisions. Even if the decisions were wrong, I would stand by my crew. Hopefully, they would learn from their mistakes. And the more responsibility they were given, the more they learned.

D. Michael Abrashoff

It's Your Ship: Management Techniques from the Best Damn Ship in the Navy by D. Michael Abrashoff. Grand Central Publishing. 2007. p.29,30

"to cut" or "to kill"

The Latin root of the word decision - cis or cid - literally means "to cut" or "to kill." 

You can see this in the words like scissors, homicide, or fratricide. Since ultimately, having fewer options actually makes a decision "easier on the eye and the brain," we must summon the discipline to get rid of options or activities that may be good, or even really good, but that get in the way. Yes, making the choice to eliminate something good can be painful. But eventually, every cut produces joy - maybe not in the moment but afterwards, when we realize that every additional moment we have gained can be spent on something better. That may be one reason why Stephen King has written, "To write is human, to edit is divine."

Greg McKeown

Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less by Greg McKeown. Crown/Archetype. 2020. p.159.

denying the request / denying the person

 

When people ask us to do something, we can confuse the request with our relationship with them. Sometimes they seem so interconnected, we forget that denying the request is not the same as denying the person. Only once we separate the decision from the relationship can we make a clear decision and then separately find the courage and compassion to communicate it.

Greg McKeown

Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less by Greg McKeown. Crown/Archetype. 2020. p.137.

what happened at the big meeting?

…we always ask the meeting owner—the most senior executive hosting it—the same two questions:

• What do you want to have debated, decided, or discovered at the end of this session that you and the team haven’t already debated, decided, or discovered?
• What do you want attendees to say when their team members ask, “What happened at the big meeting?”

In almost every case, the response is the same: “That’s a good question—I hadn’t actually thought about those things.”

It doesn’t matter if it’s an eight-person board meeting, a 15-person executive team meeting, or a 150-person leadership conference—your first step when planning an important one-off or non-routine get-together should be to draft an initial set of goals based on the answers to the two questions above. In the words of Stephen Covey, “Begin with the end in mind.”

Bob Frisch and Cary Greene

“If You Can’t Say What Your Meeting Will Accomplish, You Shouldn’t Have It,” Harvard Business Review. April 18, 2016 as quoted in HBR Guide to Making Every Meeting Matter. Harvard Business Review Press. 2016.

renaming meetings

Organizations are drowning in unproductive meetings, and part of the problem is the fact that we refer to them all in the same way. Vague and imprecise language obscures the true purpose of these gatherings, making it difficult to know how to optimize for their success. It also makes it harder to distinguish the worthwhile ones from the worthless.

In order to have fewer, more purposeful meetings, we need a more robust vocabulary to describe them. So let’s do some renaming, starting with three common “meetings” that you’ll soon realize aren’t really meetings at all.

• Meetings with just two people aren’t meetings. They’re conversations... 
• …sometimes people... huddle around a laptop or whiteboard to generate real work product together. Let’s call these group work sessions...
• ...meetings where the primary goal is to generate ideas… call it a brainstorm... 

Now let’s address a few types of meetings that are difficult to justify if you name them correctly.

• [Meetings] called primarily because managers have information to disseminate... These are convenience meetings  and almost always a bad idea. They’re typically convenient for the individual, and inconvenient for everyone else.
• Meetings called as a matter of tradition or habit — formality meetings — must also be banned... 
• Some meetings are called under the guise of collaboration or alignment, but it’s really connection we’re after. We can call these social meetings. 

Finally, we come to the decision-making meeting, a total misnomer as is it implies that the meeting itself is making the decision. But meetings don’t make decisions, leaders do. Group discussions can help support that process, of course, so let’s call them decision-supporting meetings to remind the leader that it’s her job, and hers alone, to make sure action follows...

Imagine a culture where people regularly talk about meetings using this kind of precise language. Picture someone pushing back on a meeting invitation by calling it a formality meeting... Better language isn’t the only step you must take to transform your meeting culture, but it’s a powerful start.

Al Pittampalli

“Stop Calling Every Conversation a “Meeting”,” Harvard Business Review. November 3, 2015 as quoted in HBR Guide to Making Every Meeting Matter. Harvard Business Review Press. 2016.

purpose of the meeting

Note whether the purpose of the topic is to share information, seek input for a decision, or make a decision. It’s difficult for team members to participate effectively if they don’t know whether to simply listen, give their input, or be part of the decision making process. If people think they are involved in making a decision, but you simply want their input, everyone is likely to feel frustrated by the end of the conversation. Updates are better distributed — and read — prior to the meeting, using a brief part of the meeting to answer participants’ questions. If the purpose is to make a decision, state the decision-making rule. If you are the formal leader, at the beginning of the agenda item you might say, “If possible, I want us to make this decision by consensus. That means that everyone can support and implement the decision given their roles on the team. If we’re not able to reach consensus after an hour of discussion, I’ll reserve the right to make the decision based on the conversation we’ve had. I’ll tell you my decision and my reasoning for making it.”

Roger Schwarz

“How to Design an Agenda for an Effective Meeting,” Harvard Business Review. March 19, 2015 as quoted in HBR Guide to Making Every Meeting Matter. Harvard Business Review Press. 2016.