Interactive Skills Series – Part Four
Meetings Bloody Meetings
This is the fourth in my series to help people assess how good their interactive skills are. This series is based on research of common commercial interactions that has led to many useful insights into how to create and manage effective meetings, deal with those who are most difficult to persuade – Low Reactors. This week I am focusing on those behaviors we all use most.
Clarifying Behaviors are those which exchange information, facts and opinions and, of course clarification. For Today we will consider, the four main behaviors which when used to observing meetings led to practical insights for anyone who is dreading attending yet another meeting this week J
- Testing Understanding– checking to see if an earlier contribution has been understood
- Summarizing – restating in a compact form previous discussions or events
- Seeking Information – seeks facts opinions, feelings or clarification from others
- Giving Information – offers facts , opinions or clarification to others
Over the years these four main categories have been developed into behavior groups especially Seeking the Behaviors which have led to some of the most important research on successful persuasion which I will cover in a later program.
But, for now I want to help the listeners diagnose their meetings and how too much, too little or the wrong balance can waste time and often make meetings very frustrating and ineffective
Which of these four behaviors do we tend to use most?
Usually the most common of all the behaviors we are discussing in this series will be Giving Information. In some cases this can be as high as 50%
What happens when you get over that level?
The first thing; participants’ ratings of the meeting change negatively is when a meeting has a high level of GI is Time Wasting. It happens when everyone in the meeting wants to add yet another reason, anecdote or opinion as to why an initiative should or should not be pursued. All of which tend not to help the decision making process
The second rating; that increases is that the meeting is Confusing and Divergent – This is especially true where Testing Understanding & Summasrizing are low. People often say things like it was like “swimming in syrup”. Points become disconnected, the meeting wanders and meeting participants become confused. You know when this happens because you will have another meeting to decide what was decided at the last meeting –
I have been in meetings where people drone on about themselves which feels like they are trying to puff themselves up.
Do you have any research to say what is going on when this happens?
Anyone who is a high information giver is frequently seen as less interested in others views than putting forward their own. This also often means they try to push their own proposals. When everyone is high on Giving Information it feels like there’s a whole set of mini meetings going on each not really connected with any other
What about Seeking Information – when a meeting is high in this behavior what tends to be the result?
Firstly, it would be rare for Seeking to exceed Giving Information. In fact, participants will perceive a meeting is high in Seeking if it exceeds half the amount of GI. When this happens though participant ratings change in three ways:
- Fostering interest in others’ views – it’s like they see it as stimulating interest in others views
- Convergent & Focused – When Seeking is high the connection between each successive point is likely to be clearer. This is because Seeking explores a point already made which then creates a connection to the previous contribution or asks for another pint. These meetings are also tending to be focused.
- Time Saving –you would think that meetings with a lot of questions would take longer to resolve issues that those with fewer questions –this is not the case. There is a positive correlation between people’s perception of whether a meeting saved time and the volume of SI
Testing Understanding explores understanding of previous contributions. It ties down and clarifies points which may be unclear or ambiguous. As importantly it is used to check that people are seeing things the same way. When levels are high, people rate the meeting as:
- Fair – a fair hearing
- Clear – when combined with Summarizing
- Rational – vs. levels of DA
Summarizing – Defined as a compact restatement – be careful- It’s not extended repetition or introducing new material under the umbrellas of “summarizing”
High Summarizing Meetings are rated as:
- Structured
- Clear
- Controlled
These last two behaviors seem to perform similar functions in terms of clarifying and organizing what has been discussed.
So, What happens when both these are high?
Research was carried out to correlate the number of misunderstandings and misinterpretations that occurred after the meeting with the amount of Testing Understanding and Summarizing during meetings. In all, 49 Meetings were observed involving 297partiipants.
Those Meetings low in TU & SUM had significantly more errors and omissions in people’s accounts of the principle decisions agreed to in the meeting. As meetings differ in length the researchers took TU & SUM as a percentage total meeting behavior.
The findings are rather disturbing:
- <2.5% – TU SUM Average 4.3 errors or omissions
- >10%+ TU SUM – Average 1.2 errors or omissions
So, what recommendations would you make?
To get a clear understanding and consensus on what was decided approximately 1 in 10 behaviors needs to be TU or SUM
How can people get better control of their meetings in terms of clarifying behaviors?
If you look at the current condition of your meetings, ask yourself what you need to do differently, for example:
Not making enough of the brains round the table – So. you want to create more curiosity of what the lower contributors have to say. Then use Testing Understanding where such a person reacts non-verbally e.g.
“Joan, you seem to be shaking your head about Peter’s last point – Am I right?”
Another tactic is straight forward you bring in people by Seeking –
“Joan, in our experience what do you see as the pros and cons of Peter’s position?”
What if I am frustrated with going over what was covered in previous meetings?
Certainly Summarizing will help, but if you are not the Chairperson, you will need to make a Procedural Proposal.
“Bill (addressing the Chair), At the end of the meeting can we ensure we summarize what we agree to doing before the next meeting”
Great, but how can this help me?
This is probably the first thing on your mind after reading this Blog.
How about asking us? The first call is free! Just email me to set it up.
Don’t wait, get The Crispian Advantage working for you!. If our conversation leaves you needing more, we offer at a reasonable fee telephone and video coaching improve bottom line results.
If that still doesn’t do it, we’ll work with you on a solution.
[contact-form subject=”Feedback from pdsgroup.wordpress.com” to=”nanderson@thecrispianadvantage.com”] [contact-field label=”Name” type=”name” required=”true” /] [contact-field label=”Email” type=”email” required=”true” /] [contact-field label=”Industry” type=”text” /] [contact-field label=”Feedback” type=”textarea” required=”true” /] [/contact-form]
_________________________________________________________________________
For Help in Getting Your People on the Same Page
Nick Anderson, The Crispian Advantage
© Copyright All Rights Reserved, The Crispian Advantage and Walk the Talk – A Blog for Agile Minds, [2010-2012]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Nick Anderson, The Crispian Advantage and Walk the Talk – A Blog for Agile Minds with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.