How we treat each other

Transforming Meetings: From Agenda-driven to Perspective-focused

/ Jonathan Sachs

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Meetings.

The word itself probably sends a shiver up your spine.

Meetings are a ubiquitous part of life in the working world. It is an inevitable, yet often flawed, sharing and collaboration tool for any organization involving multiple people.

In this post, I am going to talk about one of my own pet peeves in meetings: Are the participants sharing their perspective or their agenda?

Sharing your perspective is almost always the intent of a meeting. On the other hand, pushing your agenda usually wastes time and distracts from the topic at hand.

Bring your perspective to a meeting, not your agenda

Sharing your Perspective in a Meeting

Meetings exist to engage in a dialogue and to hear different perspectives in order to make the best possible decision.

It is for this reason that many successful organizations have regulated meetings to ensure there is more dialogue and perspective sharing.

For example, Amazon limits meetings to what founder Jeff Bezos referred to as the “Two pizza rule.” The rule states that he won’t attend a meeting if two pizzas won’t feed the number of attendees. Amazon also banned powerpoint presentations and uses a different tactic to level-set during a meeting.

At Amazon, the person who calls the meeting drafts a short memo that everyone attending the meeting reads independently in the first 10-minutes of the meeting. That allows more time for questions and dialogue and less for long dog-and-pony-show presentations.

Elon Musk is known for asking his employees to leave a meeting if they are not contributing to it, because it is wasting time where they could be doing other work.

These leaders understand that there is more to learn from the people they have hired to make the best decision.

In high functioning meetings, there is a high degree of trust, which allows the team to share their perspectives freely. Comments build off of each other and ideas come together with contributions from nearly everyone present. Both people who have a perspective in-favor and opposed are given space to share because the outcome of a better decision is an important goal.

I have found that meetings like this often give me energy rather than take it away. This is the exact opposite is true in a meeting where everyone is sharing their agenda.

Sharing your Agenda in a Meeting

Unfortunately, most of the time meetings exist to have, “One way conversations.”

This may look like the person leading the meeting occupying the majority of time with a powerpoint, suggesting a decision, and then leaving minimal time for input. This gives the impression that a decision has already been made.

It could also look like a participant interjecting a speech that is not relevant to the discussion but advances their role or project. They are not looking to contribute to the topic of the meeting, but rather solicit other attendees to help them with their work.

Sometimes it looks like a senior leader expressing his agenda and looking for the attendees to agree with him.

All of these examples are unhealthy dynamics.

In fact, many of these are “Simple Sabotage” tactics. These concept was advanced by the CIA in 1944 and they published a “Simple Sabotage Field Manual,” used to train potential foreign saboteurs. It has since been declassified.

Some of the tactics in the Field Manual refer specifically to behaviors in meetings:

  • Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences.
  • When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committee as large as possible — never less than five.
  • Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.

Most people who bring their agenda to a meeting are sabotaging something – the decision, satisfaction, or morale – and they don’t even realize it. By bringing your agenda to a meeting to make a decision, you may be doing just that.

The Problem in Large Organizations

I’ve spent the majority of my career working in large organizations. This meeting problem is notoriously bad. Most of my days were spent in meetings, hearing the same message over and over again, but with slightly different combinations of other executives.

The problem at the root of this meeting misery is unclear authority. Many of the meetings take place because it is unclear who has the authority to make a final decision. This leads to meeting after meeting on the same topic, looking for who is willing to make the decision to move forward. I saw this particularly at the corporate level of an organization.

Senior leaders in large organizations are sometimes managing egos, politics, and the desire to avoid blame. That often leads to suboptimal decisions make through suboptimal processes, including suboptimal meetings.

Industry leaders of large organizations, like Bezos and Musk, understand this risk and have created systems to avoid it.

The role of a Leader in the Meeting

Fundamentally, a leader’s role in a meeting is to facilitate the conversation and then decide how a final
“Go or no go,” decision will be made.

Facilitating a conversation is an art. It involves setting the right goals, ground rules, and agenda. It also involves managing dominating voices and encouraging quieter participants.

A final decision can be made in a number of ways – majority, consensus, delegated authority, or a sole decision maker. Each one should be used in the appropriate situation. What is important for the leader to do is define how the decision is being made. That often prevents disappointment and frustration from the participants in the meeting.

Key Takeaways

Effective meetings prioritize perspective sharing, encourage open dialogue, and prevent personal agendas from hijacking the conversation. Leaders play a crucial role in facilitating discussions and defining decision-making processes to ensure productive outcomes.

Weekly Content – Subscribe

Don’t miss out on more insights and tips for becoming a successful leader! Subscribe to our newsletter today to receive regular updates and exclusive content straight to your inbox. Join our community of like-minded individuals who are passionate about leadership and team building. Sign up now to stay ahead of the game!

By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive marketing, updates, and other emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Daily Content – Follow The Practicing Leader on LinkedIn

Follow me on LinkedIn for daily inspiration, insights, and game-changing strategies that will skyrocket your leadership skills.

Follow on LinkedIn

Team Accountability Isn’t What You Think it is

/ Jonathan Sachs / 1 Comment

The idea of team accountability is important, but often misunderstood. Many organizations struggle to hold people accountable. Leaders must have a good understanding of accountability to be an effective leader.

Gone are the days of rewards and punishments to drive team accountability. When most leaders discuss “holding people accountable,” they usually mean terminating low performers or punishing them in some other way. Accountability, by this definition, does not work. Instead, it becomes a recipe for turnover and disengagement.

When Accountability is Confused with Punishment

When I speak with leaders, especially leaders in middle management, there is frequent frustration around team accountability. What they tend to talk about as we unpack accountability is dissatisfaction about politics, treatment, and behaviors. Other leaders want to tie accountability to performance, similar to how General Electric CEO Jack Welsh used “Stack rankings” in the 1980s. In this model, the bottom 10% of performers would be fired at years’ end.

Tying team accountability only to outcomes is problematic because it discourages appropriate risk-taking. In addition, even high performers miss targets for legitimate reasons. While there needs to be recognition that the person did not meet their goals, punishing them is usually unwarranted. Tactics like “Stack rankings” are ineffective due to their short term orientation and punitive nature. “Stack rankings” only served to create a cut-throat and disengaged culture.

So that brings us back to the middle manager definition of team accountability. What they refer to when they describe a lack of accountability is witnessing inconsistent treatment based on favoritism, rude behavior, or a lack of performance among their peers with no obvious consequences. Using that as a starting point helps us to better understand how effective leaders understand team accountability.

Working-Definition of Team Accountability

With these leaders in mind, my personal working definition of team accountability involves two aspects: Empowerment and Transparency.

Team Accountability is really about empowerment and transparency

An organization cannot have accountability without empowerment. If leaders are not able to creatively and uniquely develop strategies and tactics to achieve their goals, accountability is not possible. There must be space for leaders to maneuver in an organization. This means that senior leaders need to set clear performance goals and expectations for behavioral standards that all team-members must follow. Leaders should have plenty of room to achieve their goals within those well-defined boundaries without being micromanaged. Creating a clear boundary like this simultaneously encourages mid-level leaders to think more like owners of their book of business, rather than managers executing someone else’s playbook.

Effective leaders use transparency as the other powerful tool in creating a sense of team accountability. By publishing relevant data regularly, it becomes abundantly clear who is high performing and who is not. In these instances, the healthiest cultures will see high performing leaders helping lower performing leaders. Further, the leaders who are struggling are aware of it and are given additional help and support.

When empowerment and transparency occur together, there is rarely a need for punishment. Everyone in the organization understands the expectations and whether they and their teams are meeting those expectations. In these cases, the conversations around accountability almost disappear. This is because often these organizations are achieving their goals and because the organization’s expectations around performance and behavior are communicated openly and repeatedly.

Using Accountability in your Leadership Practice

When a leader defines accountability as the sum of empowerment and transparency, they can achieve incredible results. I know this from personal experience. I once inherited a team that was low performing and high-drama, often asking for accountability for other team members. When we introduced clear boundaries for empowerment and transparent weekly data reporting, we never heard about accountability again.

The desire for accountability is usually a symptom of under-defined expectations and a lack of transparency. Using this model, leaders can have an immediate impact of getting the team focused on what matters most: Driving results and growing the organization in a way that supports and empowers the employees of that organization.

Key Takeaways

Team accountability is the sum of a culture that has empowerment and transparency. Clearly defined goals and behavioral expectations, coupled with transparent reporting, help to create clarity and focus on results.

Subscribe & Share

Don’t miss out on more insights and tips for becoming a successful leader! Subscribe to our newsletter today to receive regular updates and exclusive content straight to your inbox. Join our community of like-minded individuals who are passionate about leadership and team building. Sign up now to stay ahead of the game!

If you enjoyed this content, please share it with another practicing leader. Thank you for doing so.

New Leaders: Why Building Relationships with Your Team Matters

/ Jonathan Sachs

It can be challenging for new leaders to balance between being respected and approachable. However, building a relationship with your team members is crucial for their development and your success as a leader. In fact, bosses who develop relationships with their team members also help those team members to develop their own resiliency.

Relationships Create Psychological Safety

One of the most significant benefits of building a relationship with your team is the creation of a sense of psychological safety. Psychological safety is the belief that one can take risks and be vulnerable in front of others without fear of negative consequences. This creates an environment where team members feel free to try new ways of doing things, delight their customers, and share ideas without fear of retribution. Team members who feel safe are more likely to be engaged, and their engagement often translates into better performance.

A strong relationship with a boss is at the root of feeling secure and safe. When team members feel that their boss values them as individuals, they are more likely to be committed to their work and to the team’s goals. As a result, they are more likely to take ownership of their work and produce higher quality results.

According to a study in the International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, Authors Abraham Carmeli and Jody Hoffer Gittell found that leaders who develop high-quality relationships with team members can create a culture of psychological safety. These relationships were developed by providing support, empathy, and trust to the individuals, and such relationships can lead to increased learning from previous failures, therefore improving performance.

new leaders should build teams with psychological safety to enhance performance and impact

Examples From Business: Google and Southwest Airlines

To further illustrate this point, let’s examine a couple of examples from the business world. First, let’s consider Google, a company that consistently ranks as a “best places to work.” Google has long been known for its emphasis on employee relationships and psychological safety. By providing a culture where employees feel psychologically safe and supported, Google creates an environment that fosters creativity and innovation.

Another example is Southwest Airlines, which despite some recent setbacks, is consistently ranked as one of the best-performing airlines in the United States. Southwest’s employees are known for their positive attitude and excellent customer service – allowing their unique personalities to shine through without punishment or reprisal. Southwest places a significant emphasis on employee development, which includes how to create exceptional relationships among team members and leaders. By valuing their employees and creating a culture of empowerment, Southwest’s employees are motivated to provide exceptional customer service.

Example From the World of Sports: Coach Phil Jackson

Phil Jackson is known as a leader who developed strong relationships with his team members, which he did as the former head coach of the Chicago Bulls and the Los Angeles Lakers of the National Basketball Association (NBA).

During his tenure with both teams, Jackson was known for building strong relationships with his players and became known by the nickname “Zen Master”. He emphasized open communication, harmony, mutual respect, and trust as the foundation of his coaching style. He believed that by developing relationships, he could create a culture where players felt comfortable taking risks and trying new things on the court. This relationship-based approach paid off in a big way for Jackson and his teams.

Phil Jackson – Michael Jordan

Phil Jackson led the Chicago Bulls to six NBA championships in the 1990s, and the Los Angeles Lakers to five championships in the 2000s. Many of his players, including Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and Shaquille O’Neal, credit Coach Jackson with helping them develop their skills, both on and off the court.

For example, during the 1997-1998 season, Jordan was dealing with personal issues and had lost his father earlier in the year. Jackson knew that Jordan was struggling and took the time to offer his support. Jordan later said that this conversation helped him get through one of the toughest times in his life. Jordan shared that he felt that Jackson genuinely cared about him as a person, not just as a player.

Phil Jackson’s style was on full display in the documentary, “The Last Dance” when discussing his final season coaching the Chicago Bulls. Knowing that he was going to be terminated at the end of the season and the team would be broken up, he used that to further strengthen the bond among the players. He became even more trusted, especially managing the strong personalities on the team, including Michael Jordan, Scotty Pippen, and Dennis Rodman.

Phil Jackson – Kobe Bryant

Similarly, when Kobe Bryant was a young player with the Lakers, he had a reputation for being both difficult to coach and a selfish player. Coach Jackson took the time to build a relationship with Bryant, getting to know him on a personal level and helping him develop his leadership skills. Bryant later said that he felt that his relationship with Jackson was more than just a coach–he was a mentor and a friend.

These examples show how a leader who takes the time to build relationships with their team can help those team members develop their resiliency, a key characteristic of effective teams. By creating a culture of psychological safety, team members are more likely to take risks, try new things, and perform at their best without fear. As a new leader, taking the time to build these relationships can be one of the most effective ways to build trust, laying the foundation for a strong and successful team.

A Lesson for New Leaders

As a new leader, it’s essential to prioritize building individual relationships with your team members. By creating a culture of psychological safety, you’ll foster an environment where team members can take risks, try new things, and produce their best work. As demonstrated by Google, Southwest Airlines, and Phil Jackson, developing strong relationships with team members can have a significant, positive impact on driving for results. As you start your leadership journey, remember that your team’s success is your success, and investing in your team is always a wise choice.

Key Takeaways

New leaders who develop strong relationships with their team members can help those team members develop resiliency, which can lead to increased performance and success. Building a relationship with a boss creates psychological safety and a feeling of security, allowing team members to take risks, try new things, and delight customers.

Subscribe

Don’t miss out on our future leadership insights tailored for new leaders! Sign up for our free updates and receive exclusive content, tips, and tools to help you build strong relationships with your team, develop their resiliency, and motivate them to perform at their best. Join our community of aspiring leaders and take your leadership skills to the next level!

Am I serving the group?

/ Jonathan Sachs / 1 Comment

At work, I have been sharing with many teams lately about the concept of reflection as a reflex. The concept is about using what Viktor Frankl described in his book Man’s Search for Meaning as the space between stimulus and response. Stephen Covey also included this concept in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.

Embed from Getty Images

At times in my career, I have found myself hesitating in meetings. Reflecting on it, I think I hesitate because of things like Automatic Negative Thoughts (ANTS), fear that what I say will sound obvious to the rest of the group, or that others in the room are smarter or more experienced than I am and I probably do not have anything of value to contribute. Is this something you struggle with too?

Over time, I have learned a quick “test” that has helped me and I hope will help you too.

Any time I hesitate to speak, I ask myself, “Will what I am about to say serve the group?”

This yes or no question gives me enough time to reflect without missing the germane part of the conversation and to make a decision on whether my comment will add value to the discussion. This question is also consistent with my personal definition of leadership and my desire to practice servant leadership. It gives me the confidence that even if my comment is controversial, it will be received in the right way because my motivation is service to the group.

I use this test in almost every meeting that I attend. It helps me to reflect in the moment and make sure that I am contributing at a high level. The test also keeps me centered. For example, the “test” prevents me from being too quiet or too dominant because my comments are always in pursuit of service to the group.

I hope you find value in this test as well and it helps you create better and more productive meetings.

KEY TAKEAWAY: Leaders can practice reflexion in most contexts, including meetings. Before you speak, simply asking yourself, “Will what I am about to say serve the group?” will give you the confidence to speak up and reflect the authenticity of your point of view.

 

Miracles

/ Jonathan Sachs

A few weeks ago, my wife and I were in Atlanta on vacation. I had been excited for years to go to Atlanta. Not only is the city wonderful (my wife raves about it after having lived there for two years as a graduate student at Georgia Tech), but it’s one of two cities with the “Trifecta”: A ballpark, a Presidential Library, and a State Capitol building.

I enjoyed going to all three, with the icing on top being an Atlanta United vs. DC United game at Mercedes Benz Stadium, which is one of, if not the best place I have ever seen a sporting event. But it was an exhibit at the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library and Museum that made me think and want to learn more.

The Carter library has an entire exhibit on the Israeli-Egyptian peace process, facilitated by Carter, which took place at Camp David. The exhibit describes the 13-day marathon negotiation that yielded peace between Israel and Egypt. The exhibit displays copies of President Carter’s notes about the personalities of the other two country’s leaders; Prime Minister Menachem Begin from Israel and President Anwar Sadat from Egypt and many pictures and artifacts from the summit.

Carter Library

Photo taken at the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library and Museum on July 19, 2019

Ultimately, the long negotiation concluded with peace between two neighboring countries, who were previously in an almost constant state of war. The exhibit alone was not enough to satisfy my curiosity, so I read the book Thirteen Days in September: Carter, Begin, and Sadat at Camp David by Lawrence Wright.

My main takeaway from the book is that the outcome of a peace treaty from the summit was nothing short of a miracle. The three principle leaders had to set aside both ancient and modern history and religious beliefs just to begin negotiations. The outcome of the talks were constantly in doubt, and the three delegations had personalities that the others could not stand to be around. Even within the delegations there were stark differences of opinion, style, and personalities.

There have been a couple of events recently that have made me reflect on a concept that gets thrown around a lot: diversity. The benefits of creating diverse teams is well documented, yet we still struggle with an enduring distrust in the “other.” This made me wonder if diversity is a relatively new construct for humans. Since international travel is a relatively new concept, did our ancient ancestors only associate with people who were like them? Do we lack the muscle to embrace the other in a way where we can solve problems together like the leaders did at Camp David?

I find that coming to comfortable agreement even among people who share similar backgrounds can be challenging because everyone has a unique perspective. When we layer on history, personality, faith, etc, the odds of reaching agreement or collaborating on the most critical issues of our time get more and more challenging.

It has made me realize that the miracles I believe in are not acts of nature or coincidence, but those instances where diverse people can come together to solve problems. In my experience, diversity of thought and experience tend to make solutions better for all involved. Yet the pull of how we are different from one another can be stronger than the push of our commonalities.

I believe in diverse teams and I thoroughly enjoy living and working in diverse environments. The benefits of living in a diverse society, however, can only be reached if we listen intently to one another and turn off the filters of distrust.

What happened at Camp David was a miracle that produced incredible benefits to the Middle East and the world, ending wars and establishing peace. As leaders, we must help the world embrace diversity and candor to create more of these miracles that produce diverse and inclusive societies.

KEY TAKEAWAY: Diverse groups of people living and working together can produce tremendous benefits. Leaders should embrace diversity, while creating an environment where people from diverse backgrounds can explore their differences, while embracing similarities to create thriving organizations.