Summary of the book "Meetings That Get Results" - By Terrence Metz

Key Concepts in this book:

1. Effective leaders are conductors, not autocrats.
2. Teams that ask themselves what they want to accomplish generate greater results.
3. Perspective is everything when it comes to problem-solving.
4. Meetings stay on track when realistic expectations are set and impartiality is maintained.
5. Meetings with distracted or silent members are ineffective.
6. Problems are solved more quickly when creative approaches are used.

Who can benefit the most from this book:

• Leaders and organizers.
• Tinkerers and optimizers.
• Team players.

What am I getting out of it? Find out how to make your meetings more efficient.

Meetings are an important tool for determining who does what, when, and how. To put it another way, very few firms and organizations can function without them.

However, nothing is more aggravating than an ineffective meeting - until it leads to another meeting. Meetings, at their best, help teams work together; at their worst, they waste everyone's time.

Unfortunately, those charged with leading meetings sometimes lack the necessary training to do so effectively. Terrence Metz, a facilitation expert, wants to address this omission.

We'll show you how to hold lucrative and effective meetings that achieve results and, best of all, lead to fewer meetings on the road in this summary.

In this summary, 

• You'll discover why today's leaders ask questions rather than give answers.
• What a busted vehicle tire can teach us about problem-solving.
• And how to inspire your team to consider situations from several angles.

1. Effective leaders are conductors, not autocrats.

The world today is far more linked and dispersed than it was in the past. This has altered our perceptions of leadership and knowledge.

Prior to the industrial revolution, knowledge was regionalized. For example, a farmer knew a lot about a small portion of the globe — his property. Leaders stewarded such a patchwork of knowledge by gathering and preserving it. They later became managers as a result of industrialization. They were experts in the complicated technical processes that kept the world running, and they told everyone else what to do.

The digital era is distinct. Expertise is widely distributed and accessible, but it cannot be stored in a single library or mind — it exists in the "cloud."

The duties of leaders have shifted as a result of this. They're no longer in the business of dictating to others; instead, they're tasked with assisting experts in collaborating. They are, in other words, facilitators.

The crucial point here is that effective leaders are conductors, not autocrats.

Over the previous quarter-century, the workplace has altered dramatically.

Organizations in the late twentieth century were tight hierarchies. The autocratic manager was in charge at the top. His orders were passed down from one subordinate to the next.

But now the emphasis has shifted: it turns out that self-managing teams achieve more than individuals following specific instructions from up high.

Of course, leadership is still important, but the role of leaders has evolved.

They aren't expected to micromanage every part of the work process any longer. Instead, they assist experts in their job and assist teams in charting their own path toward organizational goals. People go to hairdressers for the same reason they delegate. You could cut your own hair, but the results are better when the scissors are in the hands of a professional. The finest achievements in organizations come when executives delegate the cutting to the experts — their staff.

Of fact, hair salons are simpler than other businesses: most people can get by with just one stylist. Organizations, on the other hand, must coordinate the efforts of hundreds of teams, departments, and experts.

Meetings are where this alignment takes place, which gets us back to this new generation of leaders. They may not have all of the answers, but they do command the questions. A terrible meeting is a chaotic free-for-all that doesn't lead anywhere — in other words, it's a dissonant mess. On the other hand, a good meeting is like a well-balanced concerto. Individual instruments play a piece that has a clear beginning, middle, and end. Leaders, on the other hand, act as conductors, guiding this collective effort.

And that, my friends, is the art of facilitation. So, how do you go about doing it? Let's see what we can find out!

2. Teams that ask themselves what they want to accomplish generate greater results.

Consider two folks who have the same problem: they both require a new vehicle. They agree on the criteria for judging their purchases: attractiveness and efficiency.

So far, they've agreed on everything. Despite this, they purchase radically different vehicles. One opts for a flashy gas guzzler, while the other opts for a less glamorous but more environmentally friendly hybrid. Despite agreeing on their priorities, they can't seem to agree on how to solve their problem. What is the reason for this?

Most likely, they have opposing viewpoints on what an automobile should be used for. One desires a car that is attractive - perhaps she wishes to wow her coworkers. The other values are attempting to move from point A to point B as quickly as feasible.

Meeting disagreements frequently stem from the same source: a lack of a unified goal.

Here's the main point: Teams that ask themselves what they want to accomplish generate greater results.

Meetings provide opportunities for problem-solving.

Most problem-solving methodologies, on the other hand, assume that everyone in the room understands what they're doing. So, what are we going to do? is the technical issue that needs to be answered.

However, in order to identify the best answer, you must share a shared goal. What exactly are you attempting to accomplish? Before getting lost in the minutiae – and conflicts – facilitators ask their teams this question.

Let's take a look at a common issue to see why this is so crucial.

Let's say your favourite shirt's collar is tattered. It's scratchy, and you're self-conscious about how it looks, so you go to a store, select your brand, colour, size, and price preferences, and purchase a new shirt.

Isn't it simple? That's not the case. If you were buying a shirt for yourself, you'd know what it's for. However, picture your father telling you that his old garment has an unsightly tattered collar. You inquire as to which brand he prefers if he prefers short or long sleeves, as well as his size and preferred colour. You go to the store armed with this information.

When you bring him the new medium, the short-sleeved white shirt you just bought, he thanks you, but there's a catch: he won't be able to wear it to his closest friend's expensive wedding! What went wrong, exactly? Simply put, you failed to inquire about the purpose.

Replacing a shirt is a simple and inexpensive remedy. Teams at large enterprises, on the other hand, can squander a lot of money if they make the same error. In a nutshell, it pays to consider your goals!

3. Perspective is everything when it comes to problem-solving.

You're travelling along a deserted road in a rented car when the tire bursts out. You look in the trunk and notice that there is a spare tire but no jack. You take a look at your phone. There is no signal.

So, what exactly do you do? Well, that is debatable. If you consider your predicament to be a "find-a-jack" situation, you may decide to drive down the road in search of a gas station. By contrast, if you see it as a "access-the-axle" issue, you might push the vehicle onto soft ground and dig a hole around the problematic tire.

In other words, how you identify a problem impacts how you approach solving it. And the more perspectives you take, the more answers you'll likely uncover.

The most important message is this: Perspective is everything when it comes to problem-solving.

How do you get your team to think about problems from multiple angles? Let's take a look at two ways you can get started.

The first method entails rephrasing difficulties.

Let's pretend your team's goal is to climb Mount Everest. Documenting the ascension is an important component of the project, which raises the following question: Should the whole group or just one person keep a diary?

This is a pretty restrictive definition of the problem; how about extending it by asking, "How can we create a lasting record of our ascent?" for example? This redirects the focus away from the benefits of diaries and toward the real issue at hand: documentation. Other options, such as using GoPro cameras or paying a professional to film the excursion, are only a short distance away.

You can also try refocusing your attention or flipping problems on their heads. "How do we get all of our goods to 17,000 feet?" rather than "How do we get all of our supplies to 17,000 feet?" "How do we limit our usage so we don't require as many supplies at 17,000 feet?" you might wonder.

The second strategy is more literal than the first: it involves looking at problems through the eyes of those who are involved in their solution. If you want to learn more about what's causing IT professionals to burn out so frequently, visit with both managers and technicians in that area. The first group might focus on better nutrition and earlier bedtimes, while the second might prioritize ergonomic furnishings and additional resources. The ideal solution will most likely combine the opinions of both parties.

4. Meetings stay on track when realistic expectations are set and impartiality is maintained.

As we've seen, solving difficulties entails considering several points of view. When you look at a problem from various angles, you're more likely to come up with beneficial solutions.

That is why meetings are so effective: they bring together people who have quite different perspectives on the world. However, there are moments when participants conflict. They just can't seem to agree on anything.

The facilitator takes the stage. In meetings, your job isn't to smooth over genuine differences and create a false feeling of peace; after all, disagreement can be helpful. You can, however, serve as a referee.

The main takeaway is that meetings stay on track when realistic expectations are set and impartiality is maintained.

It's your role as a referee to push participants to provide evidence for their points of view. As a result, the problem-solving process remains on track. Neutrality is the key.

Take, for example, American psychologist Thomas Gordon's groundbreaking research. His research suggests that judging people's thoughts is the most effective approach to convince them to shut down. Let's dissect that.

People disconnect and zone out for the rest of the discussion when you tell them their ideas are bad. It doesn't help to praise their contributions to the sky. What's to stop you? Simply said, this encourages them to turn off. They can go home as "winners" if they believe they've already demonstrated their worth. To put it another way, they have no motivation to participate in the rest of the conference.

Worse, both negative and favourable judgements annoy other group members. Shooting down one idea or praising another not only discourages future contributions from those who presented it, but also sends an implicit message to those who support it. You've just lost even more people. To put it another way, judicial facilitation is a recipe for disaster.

So, what's the other option? So, let's begin by taking a step back. It's not up to you to evaluate solutions; the team must come to an agreement. You may assist them to get there by encouraging participants to back up their claims with facts and to explain their reasoning. This will keep the dialogue going and bring it to a more neutral place.

You may also save a lot of pointless debate by emphasizing that consensus does not imply that everyone must agree with the answer. Set more realistic standards because that is an unrealistically high bar to clear. The goal of the team is to get to a consensus that everyone can live with, even if it isn't everyone's "favourite" option.

5. Meetings with distracted or silent members are ineffective.

When everyone is on the same page, your meetings will not only be more productive but will also be less tense. But how are you going to accomplish it? Now is the moment to discuss the ground rules.

The group's behaviour is governed by these regulations. They are neutral because they apply to everyone, and they serve to encourage decorum and attentiveness. The best part is that they make it simpler to solve problems fast and effectively.

So, how should you format your meetings? What rules should you use? Let's see what we can find out!

Here's the main point: Meetings with distracted or silent members are ineffective.

The first ground rule is the most straightforward. It specifies that all team members must be present right now.

That means that everyone should be present - both mentally and physically. In other words, participants owe it to one another to arrive on time and to pay attention to one another after they've entered the room.

It's best to discuss the specifics of this rule with your team, but here are a few suggestions to get you started. First and foremost, turn off all electrical devices. You could agree that laptops should be closed while others are speaking, or that everyone's cell phones should be set on vibrate. Encourage participants to step into the hallway or somewhere else where their conversations won't interrupt others if they need to take a call.

Scientific evidence supports the importance of this rule. Multitasking is fiction, according to study after study, because it entails doing two or more things poorly rather than one thing perfectly. When we're distracted and flitting between multiple things, our IQ drops below that of chimps, according to one study!

If punctuality is a problem, schedule 50-minute meetings instead of one-hour meetings. Start five minutes after the hour and end five minutes before the hour, allowing plenty of time for everyone to move from one meeting to the next.

Silence suggests agreement, according to the second ground rule. You're trying to get your team on the same page as a facilitator. That can only happen if everyone expresses their opinions, including those that are diametrically opposed. As a result, this rule aims to establish a culture in which participants feel obligated to share relevant knowledge with their peers. They've given up their right to complain about what the team has agreed to do if they don't do this.

6. Problems are solved more quickly when creative approaches are used.

So far, we've spoken about how to make meetings more productive. Even the best meetings, on the other hand, might feel like a waste of time if they last too long. People must start working at some time.

So, how can you make the problem-solving process more efficient by assisting your team in reaching a consensus on what has to be done?

Let's finish off with a gadget that achieves exactly that: Edward de Bono's thinking caps, created by psychologist Edward de Bono. These mental models provide a visual cue for participants to identify their current thinking, sharpening their attention and assisting teammates in rapidly recognizing the perspective from which they're addressing a challenge. This saves time while also producing results.

The main lesson is that innovative solutions address issues more quickly.

According to Edward de Bono's approach, creative thinking is divided into distinct "styles," each of which correlates to a different colour of the hat.

He claims that when teams look at a problem through all of these lenses, they gain a 360-degree view of it. And the more you see an issue, the more likely you are to come up with quick answers.

So, what are these caps all about? The white hat, which represents objectivity, is the first. When team members "wear" this hat, their sole purpose is to talk about facts. What do they and the rest of the team know? What information is missing, and how can they obtain it?

Wearing the red hat, on the other hand, allows participants to express themselves. The concept is that emotions and gut reactions have their role, but they should be kept separate from other aspects of problem-solving, such as fact-gathering.

Then there's the yellow hat, which begs its wearer to only think on the good things in life. Consider it an opportunity to assess what the team has previously accomplished. The black hat, on the other hand, encourages wearers to be pessimistic: their job is to identify flaws in every concept offered. This is an excellent approach to catch problems and bugs early on before they become costly.

Last but not least, there's the blue cap. The wearer of this hat is responsible for keeping the discourse moving, reminding participants of time limits, and outlining what has to happen next at the end of the meeting. Blue represents structure. This hat is usually worn by the facilitator, but others can wear it as well.

Of course, no one should always wear the same hat. As we showed previously, the more viewpoints you have, the more likely you are to uncover solutions. Try giving each team member or group a hat and asking them to rotate it. When you combine this tool with the other tactics we've discussed, you'll be shocked at how much more efficient your meetings become!

The important message in this summary is that today's firms are collaborative and team-driven, rather than top-down bureaucracies like those of the past. As a result, leaders must take on a new role: facilitating the work of other experts. How? It's all about getting team members on the same page during meetings, after all. Setting ground rules to create basic behavioral norms and agreeing on the aim of the team's work are the first steps. Add in some innovative problem-solving techniques, and your meetings will be more productive than ever!