Should we have a meeting?

I'm lost in a meeting culture. Many of you face this issue, too... from the corporate world to the student affairs world, we just meet too damn much. In any given week, 80% or more of my schedule is taken up by meetings, with most of the other 20% spent emailing ABOUT meetings. Maybe this doesn't bother you, but it's been frustrating me as I think more about how I spend my time and why we do the things we do.

Three common problems with meetings at my institution (and I'm sure you have experienced)...

1. We start each meeting with more than 5 minutes of small talk. I know we like each other, but the reason for the meeting should be at the front of our minds, not spending time talking about the weekend or pop culture stuff. (Note: This is where the introversion kicks in and I'm considered a jerk. I just like to think I'm trying to be efficient!). Is a scheduled business meeting the place for social time? Perhaps for some organizations, but I wonder if it's the best use of meeting time.

2. A member of the group almost always walks in late. Instead of being able to quietly grab a chair and listen, the group usually decides to walk through everything that had been discussed up to that point. So nearly 5-10 minutes are spent rehashing the first 20 minutes.

3. Near the end of a scheduled 60-minute meeting, the meeting is starting to wrap. The leader of said meeting will say "Any other items or thoughts?" Half of the group stays quiet and about half mutter "Nope..." so the leader says "Have a great day, everyone!" Which is the exact moment someone says "Well, I do have a question..." and a nearly perfectly timed hour-long meeting suddenly lasts 70 minutes and makes us 10 minutes late for our next meeting.

These incidents happen in a surprisingly high number of meetings I attend. Do they happen to you? How does it affect your engagement? Your interest?

A great piece by Carson Tate in the New York Times discusses the idea that time spent in a meeting "should generate a return on investment" and that meetings should have agendas and those agendas should align with organizational strategic priorities. He suggests using alternative methods like email or shared documents (e.g. Google docs). He also suggests having participants stand during in-person meetings to insure more efficient use of time.

Robert Pozen writes in The Wall Street Journal that if a meeting is absolutely necessary, it should never last longer than 60 minutes. Anything more than that and we lose focus. He also points to a clear lack of preparation in meetings that are ineffective. How many meetings have you attended that didn't have an agenda? How often do you lead meetings without an agenda (other than the one in your head)?

Meetings are a vital way to allow voices to be heard, but there are ways to improve the way we meet and the reasons we meet to still allow voices of colleagues/employees to be heard as well and increase our productivity and efficiency.

So what can we do?

1. Learn to say "no." Clearly there are meetings to which we cannot say no, but often our willingness to say no can help us moderate our use of meetings and keep us focused on our work.

2. Be serious about holding work time on your calendar and encourage your colleagues or employees to do the same. This allows us to challenge the need to set meetings and gives us a reason to say "no" more often. I have done this when the opportunity allows, but I quickly found that colleagues mocked it. I'd get a call to schedule a meeting and colleagues would say "I know you have time - your schedule is full but it's your 'fake schedule.'" No. That is my schedule. Work time - even a short amount of time to respond to emails, voicemails or - better yet - just to THINK for a few minutes, can be incredibly rejuvenating.

3. Have a purpose for meetings. Is the topic ready for discussion? Is there a clear agenda? Would another day (or week) of prep time allow for a better discussion? And if it has purpose, you'll keep it short. Limiting an agenda will narrow the focus of the meeting and will enable more effective use of in-person gatherings.

4. Respect other peoples' time. Schedule 45 or 50 minute meetings to allow your group to leave and get to their next meetings on time. Is social time at the beginning or end of a meeting part of your organization's culture? Does it need to be?

5. Never meet just to meet. If a topic does not need to be discussed or there are no topics that need immediate attention, DON'T MEET! Cancel or postpone a meeting - it frees up time in your schedule and you reward your colleagues/employees with additional work time in their day.

Ironically, the poem of the day in the Writer's Almanac on the day I started this post was...

At the Very Lengthy Meeting

by Kevin McCaffrey

At the very lengthy meeting
I actually felt my soul leave my body
and rush toward the ceiling—
and fly around the walls and flare
toward daylight, toward the windows—
to throw silently its impetuous emptiness
against the glass in vain.
It could not go anywhere, the clear moth.

Then it lay on the rug, not exhausted
but bored and so inert that it almost—
though nothing—
took on a hue, stained with all the breaths
and words and thoughts that filled the room:
the yellow-green color of old teeth.

#SAcommits: The trouble with language

The Student Affairs Collaborative started a very admirable project to keep mental health at the forefront of conversation throughout May, both in terms of our work in student development and as working professionals. I genuinely applaud those who started the blog posts and the brought the conversation forward.

But I have a problem with language. The hashtag chosen for this initiative is #SAcommits.
#SAcommits. Commits. When talking about mental health. I understand the pun - that by getting involved we are committing to an important conversation. But "committing" someone, as we all know, is also the term for putting someone into what is usual involuntary treatment for any variety of mental health challenges.

My problem is not with the project - I think it's vital and it's a conversation that does not happen enough. My problem is with language. Too often we excuse the use of language when it benefits us. If an organization we didn't like decided to use the term "commit" in such a way, we'd swiftly and harshly condemn them for not understanding their point of privilege if they haven't struggled with depression or anxiety. The use of the term (I'm assuming) is to convey the message to the broad audience and increase basic understanding of mental health issues. By while attempting to spread the message to the widest possible audience, a term is being used that is most often connected to the negative stigmas around mental health to the broadest audience of people. 

The argument was made that it is the profession's way of "reclaiming" that word to use in more positive ways. I understand reclaiming words - it defuses the power of the word and (ideally) changes our understanding of it and society's acceptance of it. But the problem with reclaiming words in this way is that we then get offended when someone else uses it in the way we find offensive. The whole "We're allowed to use it this way, but others should not" argument. And Twitter is a constantly flowing stream of information - so those jumping in and seeing it without context for the creation of the hashtag (something I have yet to see, by the way, thanks to an inability to read all Tweets all the time ever) may also be put off or misunderstand what is a well-intentioned attempt at changing the meaning of a commonly used term.

The stories that have been shared are incredible and powerful and will be helpful to so many readers. I truly commend those who have been brave enough to share their lives and struggles. But there are very few of us who truly understand or have experienced the commonly understood meaning of the term "committed." Sure, we work with students (and even colleagues) who are committed temporarily for treatment, but there is a big difference between continued therapy to navigate mental illness (a privilege many don't have - even in this country) and what we usually mean when we say "committed." To blur the line between the two in order to have a catchy or punny hashtag is irresponsible.

What about #SAwellbeing or #SAhealth or #SAmentalhealth?

I know very little about mental health aside from what I've learned in my job training and experienced at work and perhaps that's where I fall short in my understanding of this use of language. I want to engage in this conversation. I really do. But as long as #SAcommits is the hashtag and the central identity of the conversation, I just can't do it. 

Pecha Kucha

The theme of the American College Personnel Association's annual conference in Indianapolis this spring was "Reinvent." As part of the reinvention of the conference, there were several innovative and exciting opportunities for professionals. One of those ideas new to the conference was a Pecha Kucha night.

Pecha Kucha is a style of presentation that involves showing 20 images for 20 seconds each. The images advance automatically while the presenter narrates. The style is all about precision - sending a message in a short amount of time.  In addition to keeping presentations short and to the point, the style keeps the audience engaged. It was an amazing experience at ACPA. While I certainly am not in the big leagues like the presenters in Indianapolis, I thought I'd give it a shot.

The Gustavus Residential Life professional staff is doing "Knowledge Drops" this spring. Each week a professional staff member presents for 5-10 minutes on a topic they are interested in, passionate about or just think the staff would benefit from hearing.

So my Knowledge Drop became my first attempt at Pecha Kucha. I thought it would be a neat introduction to the style of presenting and also allow me to share some info.

My Pecha Kucha presentation is "Lost in Translation: Why Michael Jordan Would Be a Horrible High School Basketball Coach." It's about how and why the most skilled among us have difficultly translating their talent into an ability to teach that talent. Well, the presentation is only 6:40 long, so I shouldn't say anymore!

Enjoy!

Warning: The volume isn't so great on this recorded version... make sure to crank it up! Also, there's no way I really sound like that in real life. Right?