Meetings

It’s about 9:30 pm, more than 12 hours after I stepped into the studio. Our team was preparing for our first usability test.

Lulu and Roy walked into the fishbowl where we were working. They asked questions about how we had approached the project and listened to us patiently. After a while, realizing we were too fatigued to speak coherently, they asked “how long have you been here?” They shook their heads upon hearing our answers, and said “it’s not good” and “no company would allow meetings this long.”

They are right. Even though we explained we were not “meeting” per se the whole time we were there, there could more productive ways to collaborate than working in the same room for 12 hours or even longer.

It’s helpful hearing their reminders that meetings are for decision-making, that we need to be clear about the purpose of each meeting, and that we need to keep a record of the decisions we’ve made, which should be tied closely to our core strategy.

These reminders seem self-evident, but in a group setting, they can easily be forgotten or ignored. Lulu’s suggestion to stand up when the meeting starts to get long-winded is great for speeding up the pace (and it’s much more healthful.)

Additionally, it just hit me a few days ago that “embracing your constraints” can include setting time limits to meetings as well, which reminded me the meetings I had before.
When I was working full-time, I witnessed a wide range of meetings in terms of their productivity and effectiveness. Most memorable is the style in which my supervisor from my first job chaired meetings. As the executive manager of the opposition party’s campaign in Taiwan’s first presidential election, he had lots of decisions to make and different parties to coordinate. There was no time for long chitchat or endless arguments during meetings. My job as his assistant was preparing the agenda and keeping minutes for each meeting, so that every one coming to the meeting had a clear idea about the decision items to be discussed, and everyone knew exactly what to do after the meeting. During meetings, he would encourage everyone to express their views succinctly, ask questions to probe the differences among them, and try to find a common ground. By the end of the meeting, he made decisions that had to be made.

I have reservations about the extent to which this model is applicable to our group meetings, even though design and political campaign management seem to share significant similarities. For one thing, the campaign organization was hierarchical, in which the executive manager clearly had the authority and responsibility for decision-making. For another, our team has spent lots of time together to develop ideas and sketch. It’s been very helpful having teammates to bounce ideas with, critiquing each others’ ideas, asking questions and getting answers from different considerations – and all these activities take time.

For now, I think we can use my former supervisor’s style to help make meetings stay focused and effective, and continue to critique honestly and openly in generating and negating ideas.