Think about how you felt right after your last project team meeting. Did you feel energized by the ideas shared? Excited about the future of the project? Inspired to dive into a clear set of next steps?

More likely, you left the meeting wondering if it could have been an email, unsure of how the meeting moved the project forward, and confused about who will handle which next steps. Are project meetings broken? When they are planned without intention – yes. But it doesn’t have to be this way. In this blog, I share effective strategies for leaders to intentionally set project meetings teams up for success, integrate flexibility, and prioritize relationality.

Separate Project Goals from Meeting Goals

Too often, leaders think of meetings as the only way to “get things done”. But meetings are only one tool of many that organizational leaders can leverage. Meetings convened without clear intentions quickly result in frustration, lower trust in the efficacy of future meetings, and lead attendees to ask the inevitable question: what was the point of that meeting?

When the default engagement strategy is a meeting, the default path ahead is all about logistics. But leaders may be so busy with scheduling the meeting and designing the agenda that they don’t take a step back to assess whether a meeting is really the best way to reach their project goals.

Let’s say that a leader (Christine) is heading up a new project that involves staff from multiple departments. Christine may begin by convening a project kick-off meeting with the team. In theory, this is a great first step. But it depends on how she envisions the project goals.

If her project goal is strictly to share project information with the team, she may convene a 1-hour project kick-off meeting where she spends the entire time delving into project timeline and budget details with no time for discussion.

Would this satisfy her project goals? Yes. But was this style of meeting the best way to accomplish those goals? I think not.

Let’s consider the perspective of project team members. They made time in their busy schedules for yet another Zoom meeting. They showed up, excited to get the project underway and get to know their team members. They spent the hour watching Christine present slides and spreadsheets with in-depth project details. There was no opportunity for questions or discussion. They left the meeting wondering:

Now we can see that Christine’s project goal (share project information) didn’t match the project goals of team members (time for questions and discussion, opportunities to start getting to know each other). Because these project goals were misaligned from the get-go, the wrong format was chosen as the starting point (a group meeting) and held in the wrong way (lecture-style project presentation).

Integrate Flexibility Before, During, and After the Meeting

Many leaders assume that team members will be able to receive large amounts of new information during a meeting, absorb it immediately, be ready to apply that information during a group discussion, and even to make decisions based on that information. Some people can do this in a 1-hour meeting. But many people cannot. This is not a measure of someone’s intelligence, dedication to the project, or level of respect for their team members. These are simply natural variations in how people receive, absorb, process, and communicate information.Yet, our colonial workplace culture tells us that not being able to do these things is a failing. This simply isn’t true.

The larger question is: should we expect all of this to happen at one meeting? Just because some people can do this doesn’t mean that organizations should default to this approach. At some point during a project, meetings must occur. The goal isn’t to eliminate meetings entirely. The goal is to set project teams up for success before, during, and after the meeting, so that you can make the most of your valuable time together.

• What was the point of gathering in a group to receive a project lecture, when there was no time for questions or discussion?
  
• Why couldn’t that information have been sent out before the meeting, so I could look at it on my own schedule and properly absorb the information?
  
• With the team being composed of people from different departments, why didn’t we start getting to know each other?

Before the Meeting

What could Christine have done differently before the meeting? First, she could have sent out basic project timelines and budgets a week before the meeting in writing and invited team members to send her questions before the meeting. The key is that these tasks should be optional. The goal is to integrate flexibility into the process, so that people have the option (not the obligation) to read the information ahead of time, reflect, absorb, and consider their questions. Team members who have a quick processing style may consider it a “waste of time” to read it before the meeting, knowing that it would be discussed at the meeting. They have the option to wait until the meeting. But for team members with a more reflective processing style,
receiving this information in advance could make all the difference. They have the option to read it in advance and send their questions, which will make them feel more prepared and ready to engage at the meeting itself.

Second, Christine could have used the organization’s Slack platform (or similar internal messaging system) to create a project-specific Slack channel. To start the process of getting to know each other, she could have asked team members to comment on questions such as: What cities have you lived in? What languages do you speak? Star Trek or Star Wars? What TV series have you seen recently that you would recommend? This would have allowed team members to share some low-stakes information about themselves in advance, so that they were not starting from a “relational ground zero” when they showed up to the meeting.

During the Meeting

What could Christine have done differently during the project kick-off meeting? If she implemented the pre-meeting strategies above, the meeting agenda could have included:

• Going into breakout groups or pairs to share what they found surprising or interesting about what people shared on Slack, then sharing back to the full group.

• Christine doing a short project presentation (based on the information sent out before the meeting), then facilitating a discussion based on the questions that people submitted in advance and inviting further questions from the group.

• Christine starting (but not ending) a discussion about the proposed project timeline, and inviting any red flags (upcoming time off, conflicting work commitments, etc.)

• Christine facilitating a discussion about when the team should use email vs. Slack or other communication methods, where and how project tasks and status will be tracked and maintained, and invite questions or suggestions about project flow and communications.

As you can see, this approach is much more human, meets the needs of the team, and sets the relational groundwork for the project ahead. The project timelines and budget were discussed, but in a shorter format with intentional space for question submitted pre-meeting, the chance for people to raise new questions during the meeting, and general discussion. Going into breakout groups can be a useful strategy for a new team to feel more comfortable sharing information about themselves. All project questions were set up to invite and receive comments and ideas.

Now, imagine how team members may have felt after this style of meeting. They were able to show up prepared, and in full possession of the project facts and relational tidbits from the team. They had the chance to get to know people in smaller groups, as well as participating in full group discussions about the project, from a relational standpoint (communication methods and timeline comments). As compared to the first style of meeting, team members would have been more likely to feel that their time was used well, that they understood more about the project and each other, and most importantly, that they had the chance to meaningfully participate in various discussions.

After the Meeting

No matter how flexible the strategies used during the meeting may be, leaders must ensure that team members have opportunities to keep sharing ideas after the meeting. There is often much resistance to this idea from leaders. Our colonial workplace culture tells us that engagement starts and ends at the meeting. But to be inclusive of different processing styles, leaders must find ways to receive and meaningfully integrate ideas well outside of meetings.

Asynchronous engagement is the answer. It need not be complicated. It could be as simple as a Google Doc that is open for one week after the meeting, where team members are invited to share post-meeting thoughts. Or a Slack chat that extends beyond the meeting. Again, the key is to make it optional. People who fire out ideas at a rapid pace during meetings may consider it a burden to keep thinking about it after the meeting and add more comments. But for people who need time to absorb and reflect upon the information shared during the meeting, an extra week could be the difference between no comments during the meeting, and several valuable ideas presented afterwards.

Further, when people have the opportunity to engage in a way that supports (instead of punishes) their natural processing style, it can be a game-changer. Consider the meeting behaviour defaults that have been mentioned thus far: quick thinking, absorbing, processing, and rapid-fire ideas, all happening during one meeting. For people who do not fall into these defaults (which is more people than you think), these strategies can be deeply affirming, and result in creative ideas being shared that benefit the project, and perhaps the whole organization.

Leaders Can Foster a Culture of Flexibility

No matter which workplace sector you consider, the research is clear across the board: leadership sets and maintains the organizational culture. This means that the actions (or inactions) of leaders speak volumes in the organization and go a long way towards deep and lasting organizational culture change.

Leaders have the power to foster a culture of flexibility not only with actions, but more importantly, with their attitudes.

If Christine had followed all of these recommendations, but staff noticed that she viewed these as “accommodations” for a specific person that were tiresome to implement, that would have totally changed the impact. Humans are social animals, and we unconsciously pick up cues in body language, tone of voice, and chosen words. When a leader states they are doing an impactful thing, but it is clear that they are only doing it out of obligation or for positive optics, we immediately recognize the true message: I’m doing this thing because I have to. But I don’t really believe that I should have to do these things.

This foster a culture of hypocrisy, void of authenticity or care. And when this is the accepted culture, staff are likely to follow suit.

What if I told you that the staff member who made these meeting recommendations identified as neurodivergent? What I have referred to as “different processing styles” and “flexibility” would be considered an “individual neurodivergence accommodation”, with the related paperwork and
legal pathways that may involve. But these changes actually benefit all staff and could go well beyond this specific project to include all organizational meetings. Regardless of neurodivergence status, I guarantee that there are a wide range of processing styles that exist within your organization. But if there is low psychological safety, they may never feel safe enough to discuss their needs with you.

This is what moving from individual accommodations to a more flexible organizational culture looks like. Policy and process changes that may start as accommodations designed to benefit an individual or small group, can easily become part of the organization’s culture, thus benefitting everyone. When leaders have the political will and are willing to act with the strength of their convictions, organizational culture can change faster than you think.

If you want to learn more about holding flexible and equitable meetings, discuss non-meeting alternatives, and explore special impacts on equity-denied staff, ask me about my Designing Meetings that Matter workshop, available in intro, advanced, and practical formats. Check out my organizational culture workshops here and reach out here with any questions.