Great meetings feel like a group hug
I sent the agenda yesterday. The meeting is necessary, only four people are present—the people who the matter will most directly affect.
The agenda is short, we’ve given ourselves 45 minutes to discuss. Enough time to reach the bottom of the matter, but not enough time to fight over trivial details.
Why are we meeting? We are meeting because we learned that our current plan isn’t going to work anymore. We need a new plan.
I have some ideas about how the team should proceed, but I choose to withhold them for now. I decide that it is better first to summarize the current state of things and to let the other members draw their own conclusions. If I speak too soon I will taint the waters. My thoughts will come last.
Why four people? If I wait to speak, the conversation has three participants. Three participants means that there will be less grandstanding and posturing, and more productive conversation. Everyone can speak roughly 30% of the time, making room for a back-and-forth. More people would cause an unproductive cacophony. Fewer would constrain our perspective. The three participants run different subteams, they have a large stake in the project’s success.
I share our current situation with the team. We can’t test where we thought we would. There isn’t enough time. We need a new place to test.
Silence. Everyone is thinking. Then, the questions ensue.
How can we test sooner? Can we change our place in line?
What if we did the test outside instead of inside?
What if we did the test at the airport? What if we bought land?
Without prompting, the subteam leads start evaluating the tradeoffs of each approach. I interject with more information when needed, but am careful to do so in a way that doesn’t predispose the team to one solution over another. My role is that of the referee—I make sure that everyone is completely informed and has a chance to speak; I ask questions when someone says something interesting or vague; and I return the meeting to the agenda when we get off track. I account for the fact that everything tends toward triviality—it is my job to keep us focused on the big picture.
“What is the goal of this meeting?” I ask myself. We need to agree on a course of action. We need to solve the problem. If we try to force a decision too early, we won’t address the real problem. If we wait too long, we will confuse ourselves, wasting vital energy in analysis paralysis. It’s like hunting: you have to shoot at the right time.
The important thing is that we all know why we’re here: we need to test the rocket engine. There may be disagreements about how we go about doing this, but there is no disagreement on the fundamental level. Because we all want the project to succeed, we approach the conversation from a point of goodwill: we give each other space to share our opinions, and we set aside our own thoughts when others are speaking. Before disagreeing with the idea of another, we summarize it to the satisfaction of its advocate. New ideas are treated like seedlings: they are grown through further inquiry.
Mutual understanding develops. It becomes clear that each subteam lead has a piece of the puzzle, and we’re starting to assemble the big picture. Details fall into place. The energy level in the room increases. We can do this!
Eventually, the conversation lulls. It’s time to conclude. I step in, summarizing what we’ve discussed. We can modify the test trailer to support our first engine instead of testing it at Purdue. It is feasible and can be done with minimal effort. The meeting participants agree.
Next steps:
Modify tube lengths to accommodate the first engine
Design and cut a new engine mount
Communicate to the rest of the team what decision that has been made
Find an insurance policy that will let us test at the airport
Talk to Purdue and tell them we will no longer be testing with them
The meeting ends. Everyone gets up feeling energized, included, and glad we sorted it out. Now we have a new plan, all that’s left is to get the job done.
Notes:
Meetings are simple if everyone actually wants to achieve the same thing. All it takes is an agenda, good-faith discourse, and an understanding of what a desirable outcome for the meeting would be. Play for clear communication and the creation of a great plan that has buy-in from the rest of the team.
Closed-mindedness makes meetings less fruitful. When one person doesn’t listen, others will be inclined to do the same. Communication requires you to pay attention to what the other person is saying, which means that you can’t be focused on what you’re going to say next. This applies to everyone, and it applies the most to the person who is leading the meeting because people pattern their behavior off of the leader.
Many young engineers like meetings because they’re an opportunity to improve their status within the team. If one is unsure of the value they are providing to the team, meetings are a great place to show off how much you know, and how irreplaceable you are. If you approach a meeting with a desire to demonstrate your worth, you will be prone to suggest overly complicated solutions, and you will find it difficult to appreciate what others are saying. It’s on the team lead to create an environment where it feels just as safe to listen as it does to speak, and it’s on the members to show up with a calm and focused attitude.