If you’re like me, you’ve probably had your share of meetings.

You’ve probably sat through thousands of meetings: professional, volunteer, religious, ceremonial… the list goes on and on.

I know I’ve sat through hundreds of each of those. I’m sure you’ve also wondered how many of these meetings were necessary along with whether or not you and/or the person conducting the meeting were actually accomplishing something or if you were wasting time. Many times, even when there is an agenda in place, there is an aimless quality that can emerge in the meeting where the person conducting the meeting goes off on a tangent or even worse, allows another participant to go off on a tangent.

What follows is knowledge I’m sharing with you at no cost with the hope that it will inspire you to take better control of the meetings you have to conduct, whether professional or volunteer and also that you can influence those who may be wasting other people’s time with their own meanderings in the meeting. This knowledge has come at a price. Of course, it involved extensive hours of study and discovery along with consulting multiple clients and organizations on what has been missing from having a more effective meeting.

What Makes an Effective Meeting?

So, without further ado, I am sharing the formula. Please know, I’ve read a lot over the years on organizational dynamics and organizational leadership (much of which overintellectualizes the following) and I think the most important elements distill into three categories when dealing with any problem to be solved.

After all, why are you having a meeting unless there is a problem to be solved?

Of course, there are more subtle elements that need to be considered such as setting, attendees, the sensitivity surrounding a topic and much more. I may add a “bonus” tips section to this article, but to keep the formula pithy and easy to remember, this is the most essential part of any effective meeting:

When you are planning the agenda, ask yourself three questions:

What is the most pressing problem that our team/organization is facing?
What are the potential solutions to this problem?
Who is the best individual(s) to execute the chosen solution to this problem?

Really? Is that all There is to it?

I know you’re thinking to yourself that there is more to it than this. Perhaps. However, I challenge you to think about the last two or three meetings you’ve sat through that didn’t follow this pattern of identifying the problem, discovering the solutions and the implementation of the solution.

How did it go?

Did you feel like you were wasting your time?

The Challenge

If you’ve felt like your agenda is bloated or you and your meeting participants are distracted, I invite you to consider whittling everything down to the barest bones you can and only focusing on those three questions for each agenda item.

Commit to each other that you will not deviate from that item to move on to the next one until you’ve completed the three tasks. If you can’t find a person to execute on the solution, table the item, but come back to it soon without deviation. If you can’t identify which solution it is that you need to implement, make a decision to head in a certain direction and you will discover if you and your team need to pivot.

The one question you must spend your time on most of all is the first question. If you’re unwilling to identify the key and most pressing problem inhibiting your organization’s success, be prepared to flounder at best and fail at worst.

IF YOU FIND YOU’RE IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE IN HOW TO DEVELOP MORE MEANINGFUL SKILLS IN CONNECTING WITH OTHERS, OR IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE WHO NEEDS HELP, PLEASE CONTACT ME BY CLICKING HERE.

Adapted from an article originally published in CAI’s Community Interests Magazine (September 2021 issue)

Winston Churchill’s mother, Jennie Jerome was a popular American-born British socialite in Victorian society who had been invited to the dinner parties of two political rivals within one week’s span. On-again, off-again British Prime Minister William Gladstone hosted the first party she attended. It was said that Queen Victoria wasn’t really a fan of Gladstone, but he possessed a lively personality with knowledge on a variety of subjects and enjoyed being the main conversationalist in any exchange. Later that week, Ms. Jerome attended a second dinner party hosted by Gladstone’s political opponent, also on-again, off-again British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. Disraeli was often described as a more reserved person with a dry wit and listening ear.

Jennie Jerome

**British-American socialite and Winston Churchill’s mother.**

Following the two dinner parties, Jerome was asked by a journalist about the kind of impression she received from each man. Whether she realized it at the time, she shared an immortal nugget of wisdom:

"When I left the dining room after sitting next to Gladstone, I thought he was the cleverest man in England. But when I sat next to Disraeli, I left feeling that I was the cleverest woman."

Disraeli became Britain’s next prime minister in this election.

What was the Difference?

None of us were present at either of those dinner gatherings and yet, Jerome’s pithy summation of how each interaction went tells us so much about how each man approached human interaction and communication skills. Also, it’s likely a lot of factors influenced the outcome of that election. Since I wasn’t there, it wouldn’t be fair to judge both men on that simple summary; and yet, if we look to other sources, it seems that this was the “essence” of what each man embodied.

It’s interesting to contemplate the personality traits and the overall impression Disraeli and Gladstone’s contemporaries give of the two men. I shared a summary above, but even with that simple distinction, could those traits and the overall makeup of each man have contributed to leaving Jerome with those two powerful impressions? I think so. I think that even though both men had their own supporters, Disraeli came out the winner of this contest by being the best version of who he was and then trying to draw out the best version of Jerome.

In other words, I don’t believe Disraeli just attended the 19th Century equivalent of a couple of two-day courses on how to make new friends and influence voters and then became a “master of human relations.” Maybe that was how Gladstone approached it…maybe not. Something worth pondering.

Maybe Gladstone unconsciously (or consciously) gave the impression he did to Jerome because it was just who he was, and he couldn’t help himself (such a strange phrase: “couldn’t help himself.”) Another way of saying it was that he could have been on some sort of “ego autopilot” where he might have not been paying as close attention to what was really at stake in that interaction with Jennie Jerome. On the other hand, it seemed that Disraeli was paying attention and perhaps his “true self” came through that evening…or maybe not.

The Evolution of an Idea

I had originally written an article about the two above-mentioned British dinner parties that was originally published in September 2021* and my original intent with this article was to just copy and paste what I wrote then with a few slight changes for context. That article contained a list of tricks and techniques that would help any earnest reader have a meaningful conversation with another person, if that person was “present” and in the moment. It didn’t consider the mood of the reader though or if they were having an “off day.”

Since that article was originally written and published, I have spent much of that time up until now immersed in deeper and deeper internal and external conversations about what goes right with interpersonal relations improvement attempts…and what goes wrong. Additionally, in redrafting this article you are reading now, what if you experimented on my suggestions found they came up short from time-to-time when you weren’t “feeling it” on a certain day? Suddenly, I would become the deficient dispenser of poor advice. No, there is something more to it then “techniques,” which are a useful bridge from the more embryonic stage of improved communication development to naturally giving the impression Disraeli did and doing so naturally. I’ve hinted above at some of the ideas above and I’ve discovered and developed and subsequently have taught to others as solid concepts on improving communication skills and therefore, our ability to relate to others.

I have much more to say on this subject, but I will refrain from delving too deeply here.

Feel free to comment below. Feel free to share.

If you find you’re in need of assistance in how to develop more meaningful skills in connecting with others, or if you know someone who needs help, please contact me by clicking here.