On corporate meetings and decision making

mohansrides · 22nd July 2023, 00:06

Recently I read this article - https://fortune.com/2023/07/13/shopi...xpert-warning/.

The point being made was that today's corporate environments are drowning in meetings and that we have to find ways to reduce the scourge that meetings have turned into.

It's a laudable thought. However, I think this approach does not address the root cause of the problem; which is the fact that decision making as a skill has literally died a pitiful death. And because today's corporate environments are bereft of skilled decision makers, we have to compensate by deciding everything via committee.

To be clear, all decision making happens in a vacuum; meaning no matter how much information you have, you will never have ALL the information. So, taking decisions is a skill that one learns just the way one learns any skill; by repeatedly exercising it. From a young age, you keep taking decisions and owning the consequences. Over time, you understand how your decisions play out and you build an intuitive strength in your own convictions. You also learn to sort out the noise from the real data. More than anything you construct mental frameworks and reference points for yourself that provide you with an intrinsic understanding of yourself and how you process the circumstances around you. This is the key.

Today's scenario of multitudes of meetings is a direct result of people not learning the skill of decision making. This is due to no fault of the employees. We just are working in unfortunate circumstances that do not allow us to learn this skill. Corporate policy frameworks which were originally designed to facilitate ease of decision making have actually resulted in the opposite - total paralysis of thinking. You can walk into any company today and chances are that you will find vice presidents sprinkled all around like they are part of the furniture. Ask them to take a decision though, and in all likelihood, you will find that that request will travel all the way up the corporate tree; meaning meetings over meetings over meetings.

My point is that just by coming up with software that now shows you the cost of each meeting, we aren't going to magically create an environment where decision making thrives thereby reducing meetings to a minimum. I mean you can't flip a switch and create a totally different work culture. It definitely is going to take a lot more than that.

I want to lay out 2 scenarios from the past just to draw a contrast.

Scenario 1:

Someone I know personally had a long 40 year career in consumer durables in India. This man and his team used to sell expensive medical equipment like CT scanners back in the early 80s. Now, my memory is hazy and I may not be entirely accurate about the type of machine; but I surely remember that these machines were HUGE. They occupied a room and were CBUs from Japan. Even the support technicians had to be imported by from Japan and the poor sales teams had to babysit the machines until any fault was repaired.

Those were the days of the "license raj" and any prospective buyer of these machines had to possess a boatload of licenses that proved that they were a 'hospital' which was capable of buying such machines.

Now here is where the story gets interesting. The gentleman I mentioned earlier ran a sales team that oversaw a region of the country. They learned that small town India had quite a few qualified doctors who were providing full scale medical services across the entire spectrum - all the way from obstetrics to geriatrics and hospice care. These doctors were the lynch pins of their communities and were highly respected. Many of them expressed interest in the machines as they wanted better diagnostic tools for their patients; and some of them were even willing to plonk down cash for the machines immediately. But guess what; they couldn't. Because they didn't have the zillion licenses required to buy the machines.

So, here is what the sales team did - they identified one candidate buyer and then... wait for it.... they made him a hospital. Meaning, they applied for and procured all the licenses on his behalf; printed his new letterhead' painted a new board saying "so and so hospital" and hung it outside his house / clinic. They ran interference with all govt agencies who came calling. They literally took a one man medical clinic and, over the course of many months, turned it into a multi-specialty hospital. All this to sell a CT scanner. And once this play worked, they repeated it over and over again across the country.

But, this still is not remarkable. What is remarkable though is that to find workarounds to a stifling regulatory environment, this sales team took a HUGE decision all by themselves and then followed that up with equally important decisions to execute the plan. They did not go running to their corporate bosses to OK this and OK that. Their bosses weren't kept in the dark of course; but overall no approvals were sought from the corporate office because it wasn't thought necessary. This team working in the field was empowered to take these decisions without asking corporate to sign-off on their every move.

Of course, it is not like they got it right every time. There were plenty of bad decisions and the decision makers in the field owned the consequences of those decisions as well. These stories too came out over the years. Many of the consequences of negative decisions were quite drastic. But, whatever happened, the wings of people taking decisions downstream were never clipped. People continued to take decisions and then continued to build their internal value systems as to what worked and what didn't. That's how they built their management skill-sets.

A direct consequence of all this decision making was that the org saved thousands of man hours and crores of rupees by way of meetings not conducted.

Scenario 2:

A company had a reunion for all their employees from the 70s and 80s. Now, I would like to see which IT major even cares about their employees enough to organise reunions of their employees from 50 years ago. But, that is a conversation for another time.

Coming back to the topic on discussion; during this reunion, there were many speeches given. In one such speech, the ex-EVP who was part of the founding family of the company remembered that he was on an Indian Airlines flight to meet a customer and was carrying a machine with him that was the size of half a human being. It would not fit into the overheads and could not be checked in as it was a scientific instrument that was specifically calibrated to a degree of precision that needed it to be babied on the plane. Just as he was wondering how he was going to carry this piece of equipment, the airline staff told him that the company had booked two adjacent seats. One for him and another for the machine that he was lugging. The man let out a sigh of relief and immediately said a silent thanks to his staff for a job well done.

(Yes, in those days you could book 2 tickets for one person with extra luggage that was too fragile to be checked in).

Remember that in the 70s, there was no internet. One had to go to the Indian Airlines office to book the ticket. The person who did this for the company on a regular basis was their office boy or what people derogatorily referred to as a peon. This PEON had decided that the big boss would need 2 seats and had booked it. So monumental was that decision that the corporate honcho was remembering it 50 years later, mentioning the peon by name in front of a gathering of almost 300 people.

This still is not the remarkable part. What struck me as stunning was that that peon felt EMPOWERED to take the decision on the fly without ever coming back to the Exec VP for approval. In fact, he didn't even bother to inform the office staff after the fact that two tickets had been booked. Our EVP found that out only when the boarding passes were handed to him. An extra airline ticket was an expensive proposition in 1983. And yet, said peon didn't stop to wonder if he was doing the right thing by choosing on the spot to buy the extra ticket.

Take the above two scenarios and contrast it to today's corporate environments. I haven't worked in FMCG or in consumer durables; but in IT and ITES, you cannot imagine this level of empowerment or skill in decision making. So, we are left with no option but to go to pointless meetings which are designed to obfuscate accountability. Software giants like MSFT or Google or Meta especially are quagmires of meetings because they can't seem to get it right with empowered decision making downstream. It shows in the way they run the companies - hire truck loads of people at exorbitant prices; then fire them at the slightest frown of a Wall St. analyst. This is the corporate environment of today.

To be fair, I think the services side is a little better; but only slightly. That is because the IT services business is built on client approvals at every step. So, it is relatively low risk as it is the client who ultimately owns the decision making process.

I would like to hear the perspectives of those who work in big FMCG and CG companies which power our economy - Brittania, MRF, MSIL, Mahindra, Unilever, Tata, Godrej, etc. How is the decision making in such orgs? I know for a fact that they are far more employee oriented than even the biggest software giants. I mean, the Tatas built an entire town for their employees (Jamshedpur); and the Godrej colonies in Mumbai are legendary. If that isn't placing the employee front and center, then I don't know what is. My question is if the level of employee centricity in our brick and mortar giants also translates to these organisations empowering their employees to take decisions at all levels of the hierarchy? If I could, I would love to work in the IT departments of any of these old world companies.

Just to give an automotive flavour to this, we have seen GM, Ford, and others exit our market citing so many reasons. In the middle of all this, Kia came in and thoroughly owned everyone else. They recently completed the rollout of the millionth vehicle from their plant. They turned their late entry into the market into a total advantage. Their product portfolio has been immaculate in the face of the same "adverse" circumstances that pushed the others to leave. So, Kia is definitely on to something. The decision making process within their India org is far superior to that of any other automotive player in the Indian market today. What is the secret sauce of such orgs?

Would love to hear diverse perspectives on this.

Cheers

V.Narayan · 22nd July 2023, 06:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by mohansrides

The point being made was that today's corporate environments are drowning in meetings and that we have to find ways to reduce the scourge that meetings have turned into.
And because today's corporate environments are bereft of skilled decision makers, we have to compensate by deciding everything via committee.

To be clear, all decision making happens in a vacuum; meaning no matter how much information you have, you will never have ALL the information. So, taking decisions is a skill that one learns just the way one learns any skill; by repeatedly exercising it. From a young age, you keep taking decisions and owning the consequences. Over time, you understand how your decisions play out and you build an intuitive strength in your own convictions. You also learn to sort out the noise from the real data. More than anything you construct mental frameworks and reference points for yourself that provide you with an intrinsic understanding of yourself and how you process the circumstances around you. This is the key.

Very relevant thread.

Before this thread becomes a litany of laments of how the world has crumbled let me squeeze my two words in. {it helps to be an early riser

}. Dear Brother @mohanrides you are sounding like my oldie-goldie batch mates who are forever lamenting about jane kahan gaye woh din...Good days are right here but we might be working in the wrong place! Allow me to offer my comments.

It all boils down to level of deep sense of ownership and excitement for your products and the business you are helping to build. When it is a passion it is a joy and not a job. Ask any successful entrepreneur no matter how large his business has become will remember every fact, key piece of data and often names of junior employees because that is what he is breathing and living and dreaming all the time. Ask me!

It isn't as if the skill of decision making has passed away. Far from it. It is just that like with all organizations that get too large and become bureaucratic many of the super large IT companies - Indian & foreign - are bureaucracies and hence the need for meetings for safety and information and to quell nervousness. Most not all of the middle management tend to veer towards bureaucracy for their own safety. Can't blame them. In the CXO suite even in these giant corporations empowerment & fast decision making exists - it may not always percolate down.

When there is a sense of ownership & empowerment meetings with the CEO {aka 'the Lala' i.e. folks like Samurai San or @skanchan96 or @androdev or me and many others} or meetings amongst peers take place on SMS or WhatsApp - that is the record of minutes sprinkled with monosyllabic phone calls where you work in shorthand and cuss words. The four letter word I used over the phone and the tone in which it was said was the morse code between me and my head of finance - over the decades he became a very dear & trusted friend and to whom I handed over my business. Our fights used to be like two tomcats going for each other! - it reflected the empowerment he had.

Along with empowerment are needed two other components - first a willingness to accept that the other chap will not do things exactly the way you would; and second that sometimes cock-ups will happen. Don't crucify a sincere effort if a cock-up occurs. Be unafraid to fail. As an entrepreneur as you are not answerable to anyone, or almost so, then fear of adventure & failure recedes and you plough forth either to reach the skies or fall flat on your face in the mud hole. Interestingly I had one industrialist as a shareholder and one low grade private equity. The industrialist who ran a big empire never ever, not once in so many years, questioned by doings, successes or stumbles. My quarterly meetings with him were over coffee and all we did was gossip about other industry wallahs or he would connect me to some potential customer. He understood the waves and the troughs. The PE guys on the other hand were always on tenterhooks or couldn't understand (at a deep level) and this was because they had never run a business ship themselves let alone build and grow one.

Leadership is alive and kicking in many parts of the world. It might be missing in some of these behemoth IT companies. As I repeat often on Team BHP, IT companies are not the whole industry & commerce of this country. They are a fraction albeit an important one. If we want the safety and high wages and status of working for a big corporation {the "impress your future mother-in-law" factor} then bureaucracy and working for corporate drones is a part of the deal. Within the IT world that most Team BHPians {or vocal ones at least} seem to live in empowered decision making could be found in early stage companies with the attendant risks of stability.

So have hope, empowerment and quick decisions are alive in a lot of places.

androdev · 22nd July 2023, 08:09

You are a great story teller @mohansrides. I can read whatever you write but I do have to pinch myself not to get hypnotised :-)

Interestingly KIA project happened in Andhra Pradesh instead of TN or GJ because of quick decision making (almost overnight) - by Mr Chandrababu Naidu. In fact, most deals, always have someone taking an empowered decision. Even the defence deals and land acquisition settlements, etc. end up being such decisions.

The committees and the endless meetings that you see are just an eyewash to make the incompetent look busy and feel important. There is always that person who has the eye on the trigger and going to pull it.

Given all the negative sentiment attached to authoritarianism, decision making has become more subtle and not in your face one-man-show. Consensus is often staged, even at home - those who bought the cars they loved and made it look like a family decision would know

If anything one should be alarmed by the pace and ruthless efficiency of business organisations.

vigsom · 22nd July 2023, 08:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by mohansrides

- today's corporate environments are drowning in meetings
- corporate environments are bereft of skilled decision makers
- owning the consequences

Quote:

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

- deep sense of ownership and excitement the business you are helping to build
- many of the super large IT companies - Indian & foreign - are bureaucracies and hence the need for meetings for safety and information and to quell nervousness
- middle management tend to veer towards bureaucracy for their own safety
- Along with empowerment are needed two other components - first a willingness to accept that the other chap will not do things exactly the way you would; and second that sometimes cock-ups will happen

Quote:

Originally Posted by androdev

KIA project happened in Andhra Pradesh because of quick decision making

Just been equipped with a new heart, and new blood, so raring to post.

Thank You, @mohanrides, @V.Narayan, and @androdev for your insights and experiences. I've summarised a few points from your posts for quick reference. Here are my experiences from organizations in 4 diverse sectors:

1. I've worked in arguably India's most dare-devil Oil to Chemicals company, one of the top IT service companies, India's most sought after engg and construction company and am now consulting with a top company in Ops Risk Management.
2. Early on in my career, we were empowered to take quick decisions in the interests of business (also not at the cost of employee and asset safety) and that became my greatest strength. That very strength scuttled me in my next two jobs, but I just didn't care. I kept decision making my strongest weapon. It gives one supreme confidence in crunch situations.

Some examples from these three organizations

1. First boss in first Co. - a safe player, going by the rule book. Didn't help much but aided in building strong management systems. Second, third boss - intelligent, willing to stick neck out, take risks, empowering folks, and I shone there. This resulted in opening our eyes to stuff that seemed unachievable.
2. Second Co. - playing to the gallery and more show than substance. I'd say average financial management, and high on ego. I still took great decisions but at the cost of locking horns with top folks. Got astounding results on business and people indices, but the top brass' ego didn't want to accept those - did not last there.
3. Third Co. - riding my experience in Co. No.1, had enough ideas to get a large refinery project that I was building to be done in record time. However, neither the PMC nor the client was interested since, maybe, they had vested interests in delaying the project. The project slated for completion in 32 months got done 26 months late, riding on the Covid era excuses.
4. Current - have all the liberty as long as I meet (or beat) deliverables in projects and there is no noise from the client.

I hate meetings, which are convened just to show that there are meetings. Most of them are just time wasters and snack munchers!

jkrishnakj · 22nd July 2023, 09:26

What a fantastic ‘time relevant’ thread. I can only think of, like Narayan rightly said ‘where are the good old days’.

Cut to 2005-6, I had to interview a candidate and we could do it just outside the Mumbai airport, over a chai. He was flying out of Mumbai and I was flying into Mumbai and we found a common time. 20 minutes and we shook hands and left. The good old blackberry shot out a mail confirming his selection. And that was it. No more additional interviews. No elaborate discussions, case studies, social styles test etc. that person is now doing very very well in one of those MBB consulting firms at one of the highest levels.

Last week, I wanted to hire someone and I can’t even describe the number of documents, checklists, post interview feedback sheet, more next rounds etc etc.

Nav-i-gator · 22nd July 2023, 09:53

I’m from non IT background and have worked in cosmetics, FMCG and consumer durables MNCs and currently working in a heavily regulated industry.

I blame a major part of delayed (won’t say poor) decision making to all these code of conduct/compliance training’s post which one has to sign a document saying they won’t indulge in any such practices and if found doing so, will be immediately dismissed and liable to be punished under relevant laws. These trainings go on to detail examples where someone was found to be doing this or that, and the consequences. It appears one is better off not to be doing anything rather than doing something for the company where if anything goes wrong, you are gone.

Also, during early investment cycle, companies are more willing to let the local leaders have their way but as they grow, global practices and leaders start calling terms, leading to a perceptible increase in decision making processes.

I still feel that given today’s regulatory environment and age of social media (any miss step and the entire reputation of a company is gone), decision making is much more complex than “the good old golden age”. At times, a gap in decision making is indeed a good thing, pondering over an issue for a bit longer and discussing with a larger group can bring out better diversity of thought in play, leading to much better decisions

Samurai · 22nd July 2023, 10:11

This topic deserves a book, but Mohan as done a great start. As a vendor, one of the biggest problems I deal with is the disempowered stakeholder.

The person who wants something is rarely the guy who can approve it. At most he/she can recommend and then pray. This kind of dysfunction is by design in lots of IT companies. Maybe it is because of high employee turnover, they can't let just one person make decision anymore. Maybe it is because of numerous cases of principal-agent conflicts. But the cure has not fixed the principal-agent problem, it just shifted it another department.

Let's say the engineering department has approved our product after thorough study and prototyping. But they would never talk about price because they don't have any budget. Then they refer us to procurement, and the dance begins. Some procurement guy who has no idea why the Engineering department chose us, starts negotiating on the price, comparing it to other products which he thinks is similar. Let's say we agreed on price X, then he passes the file to the finance department. Then someone in finance decides X is not good enough, and wants further discount quoting policy issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samurai

When someone who doesn't understand the value of the item wants you to reduce the price, how does one argue? In fact, it is a deliberate tactic to feign ignorance about the value we deliver. (i) Oh, you are asking for 100k, but our budget is only 50k. (ii) Our policy doesn't let us pay more than $30/hour (iii) You know, your competitor is only quoting 60K. We can't pay more than 10% of the lowest competitor, even if you are much better. It is policy.

Note how none of these reasons have anything do with the value delivered?

Now imagine a different situation. Give a fixed budget to the Engineering department and let them choose their vendors and negotiate the contracts on merit. Then the vendor is dealing with a decision maker from day one, and the goals of the stakeholders are met much more efficiently. The management can review the decisions every 6 months and decide if the money was spent wisely. If you don't empower the stakeholders financially, they will just become paper pushers. And the decision will be made by people who have no stake in the decision.

Vishal.R · 22nd July 2023, 10:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by mohansrides

To be clear, all decision making happens in a vacuum;
.
This is the key.

For individuals, above paragraph summaries in best way.

For organizations, how "accountability" especially in case of a failure is persuaded has deep impact on decision making process. Main challange is to achieve balance between two extreams, bad and "lazy" decisions at one end and too conservative and politically correct approach due to fear of consequences of a failure.

subraiyr · 22nd July 2023, 10:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samurai

This topic deserves a book, but Mohan as done a great start.

I have had some great experiences in my career. I started out on my own after my engineering days setting up a small scale factory. 6 machines in all with about 19 workers to ensure i beat the PF. Rest were contract labors. All decisions taken in conjunction with the foreman over tea and we managed to deliver some amazing work for the linkes of Ranee brakes, Padmini motors and so on. Interestingly, my career started with the auto ancillary industry in Chennai
Next big moment was to join a start up. 4 promoters cutting across an IAS officer, a Marcom big wig, an IT stalwart and a start up fanatic. I was in charge of the sales team trying to make it big in the CRM industry in late 90s. The empowerment from CEO was phenomenal. Team meetings were done over a quick lunch or playing carrom in the evening. Decisions were taken with a few minutes and you were never scared of screwing up. Learn and move on was the mantra. We screwed up a few deals, but in the end hit it big and moved on
I jumped ship after about 13 years and landed into a consulting org. Strangely, empowerment was mercurial. Some bosses loved to get things done and therefore did not worry too much about how you achieved, as long as you were ethical. Some bosses on the other hand were micro managers and went by the firm playbook. The firm prided itself on promoting an entrepreneurial culture, but sadly did not reflect in the way things were done. Some of the decisions which i would have taken in my previous firm without batting an eyelid was now above my payscale. Still biding my time here as i venture out on my own in the next couple of years
Worked with my missus to start a talent acquisition firm and now we are 50 strong. Absolute joy of doing things your way, making mistakes, getting beaten down, dusting away and running forward

At the end of the day - if you are in a corporate environment, your superior should have the mindset of exploring. If not, you will end up with committee culture and meeting mania

chennai-indian · 22nd July 2023, 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by mohansrides

Recently I read this article - https://fortune.com/2023/07/13/shopi...xpert-warning/.

The point being made was that today's corporate environments are drowning in meetings and that we have to find ways to reduce the scourge that meetings have turned into.

It's a laudable thought. However, I think this approach does not address the root cause of the problem; which is the fact that decision making as a skill has literally died a pitiful death. And because today's corporate environments are bereft of skilled decision makers, we have to compensate by deciding everything via committee.

Would love to hear diverse perspectives on this.

Cheers

So true!!. I worked for a small company where we could take our on decisions for 25 years. Quit after the company was taken over by one of the big IT companies because I could not handle the inane meetings and bureaucracy.

shankar.balan · 22nd July 2023, 13:35

Mohan. As usual first class.

Many of us who have worked our way up the ladder of life are basically independent thinking, non-bureaucratic, ‘commandos’ who simply get out there and get the job done. Decision making is an Art and a Science - there is a certain amount of ‘gut’ which comes with ‘experience’ and which cannot be replaced irrespective of the ‘data’.

This is why in the Armed forces the Sergeants are the ones who really run the show. They usually know much more than the commanding officers. Collective Decision making in this Democratic Process also argues a certain reluctance to stand up and say it like it is. Because everyone is too busy protecting theirselves and when it is a Collective decision then the blame for things going wrong cannot be directly attributed to any single person.

What comes to mind is a bunch of ‘Lemmings’ all hurtling towards the brink with not even one of them having the sense to call a halt to the headlong rush to destruction.

Working in these Modern Day Big Corporates has lost that charm. All they give is a sort of ‘security’ which can also be likened to ‘Golden Handcuffs’.

Most of us may have learned the basics in Corporates but soon parted ways from the soul destroying ‘conformism’, ‘image/ perception management’ and other useless trappings and went off to work with small groups in start ups or entrepreneurial setups or even intrapreneurial setups so as to create genuine sustainable long term value. And some of us took flight to soaring heights.

Sadly these self-same small companies with highly empowering cultures of decision making based on trust, fall right back into the quagmire of corporate bureaucratic red tape the moment they get absorbed into a larger Corporate. And the wheel thus comes full circle yet again.

Most of these ‘honchos’ are just ‘managers’ and are more interested in ‘holding their seats at the table on the gravy train’ rather than actually stepping back, letting go, trusting and empowering their people to make decisions, learn and grow. This is the typical CYA philosophy which people in large Corporates fall prey to, they just like to bet on certainties rather than ‘stick their necks out a bit’!

Meetings are a huge time-waster and quickly deteriorate into ‘excel sheet cell-analysis’ and then further degrade into pure ‘analysis-paralysis’. No valuable decisions get taken because of the above-mentioned CYA.

A Creative and Fearless approach to Life and Work has so much more gains to offer. All that one needs is an open mind.

But we are missing out on all of this because of our own narrow minded blinkered vision and trepidation which results in perpetual ‘testing the waters’ rather than plunging in.

NetfreakBombay · 22nd July 2023, 17:07

I have been on both sides of table. A small company that sold to larger Orgs, and centralised "review" panels in larger Orgs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samurai

Now imagine a different situation. Give a fixed budget to the Engineering department and let them choose their vendors and negotiate the contracts on merit. Then the vendor is dealing with a decision maker from day one, and the goals of the stakeholders are met much more efficiently.And the decision will be made by people who have no stake in the decision.

This pattern does create lots of bureaucracy, however it does have some benefits. For example :

Ensures that different businesses don't have siloed choices. E.g.: Say India-Sales buys Salesforce while Indonesia-Sales buys Oracle CRM. Buying additional units of same software might have been cheaper and both software teams will end up spending on integrations with HR / Finance systems .
Ensures that no-one buys from a company without diligence. E.g.: Department might buy software from small companies but might not prepare for scenario where supplier might not exist (Like source code escrow or
support contract with alternative or something similar)
Ensures central repository of contracts / payments.

This does cause lots of meetings . But not easy to find alternatives.

aaggoswami · 22nd July 2023, 19:58

Very nice thread.
After more than one decade of experience, here is what I can chip in :

1. Agenda of the meeting. This should be communicated first to all stakeholders related to that meeting. Agenda is the basic foundation to a successful or rather an effective and meaningful discussion that can actually add value to the work being done. If agenda is not clear to all concerned stakeholders, the meeting takes a rather informal route.

2. Patience and listening to all points raised. Annoying for those who can foresee what would happen for the task on hand. Seniors and experienced are the ones who have to display solid capacity to have patience. Sometimes, there is a lot to know and the decision makers or those who are going to execute the tasks at various stages can get valuable inputs.

3. Putting up your views to counter what one feels can lead to potential hazards. Pen and paper still lead the way as one as to listen, pen down points, and then give in inputs. Again, those at more responsible positions are the ones who need to do this.

4. Summary and conclusion of meeting. Those who chair a meeting should ensure this is done. So just in case someone has a point to raise can do so. Also, when the execution is done if something goes off track, then this summary can help to bring things back on track.

5. Share minutes of meeting with all stakeholders. And those in meeting from a particular department should share it in their team depending upon priority and sensitivity of information. Helps other plan accordingly.

6. Timeline. This should be crystal clear to all, time is money in business. Hazy or translucent timelines must be dealt with in the meeting and if needed at a later stage the a higher authority should be involved and then the newer details be shared for all concerned stakeholders related to task. Makes life easier, more productive.

What actually happens is :

A. People use meeting to show off what they have accomplished, which is good to an extent if correct and directionally accurate situations/tasks are cited. But not good if one is boasting excessively, which is what I have observed.

B. Using pitch, tone and deep voice to dominate in the meet. Often what happens is there is less communication while working and more in the meeting leading to a skewed conversation eventually paving way for a wrong decision that would need reconsideration.

C. Wrong Sub-delegation to wrong person in meeting. Disaster in the making. A balanced or prudent conclusion is not arrived at and then information is not flowing to all. Hidden animosity arrives at doorstep with the weapon for office politics. This is a big concern generally.

D. More weightage is given by managers/leaders, etc. due to relationship for something that can be counter productive.

E. Concerning to timelines, any input which is accepted we need to look into if not addressed will be an urgency impacting overall business.

Humans, the most intelligent of all species, more often than not lead to chaos. Have seen so many people first create a problem and then resolve it just to show they are go getters and solution oriented.

Rather than discussing solutions, atleast in my experience, people focus on problem and then wander off topic. Like while discussing a customer, eventually leads to how difficult or bad repute a particular customer has. Anything of this sort in the meeting reduces the value addition an organization as the foundation is meeting becomes weak, skewed against the organization/person who shall eventually be paying for product or service.

Samurai · 22nd July 2023, 23:50

Quote: