In response to the posts relating to “Gant Wisdom 1,” a reader writes:
“SC has it; have an agenda for the meetings and stick to it. Stick to the agenda. Have groups of a reasonable size. A faculty meeting with 150 members present has only one purpose, to put out information. Sometimes these large faculty meetings are needed. If so, stick to the agenda, and don’t accept off-topic questions (especially comments) during the meeting. Anyone with a question should be directed to see you after the meeting, and you had best be available.
In small groups, have an agenda and stick to it. Obtain your objective and adjourn. If someone has something they want to discuss in the group forum, have them discuss the request with you and then YOU determine if it makes the agenda on the next meeting. Keep an open door policy so that anyone with any concern can at least meet with you one on one.
Your team should have the right to meet with you privately for any concern. Getting a public forum is another matter.”
I have found that if leadership is constantly visible and available (in classrooms, hallways, intake, dismissal and lunches) and is consistently coaching and listening to staff, that the need for long meetings is greatly reduced. It is when leadership is remote and inaccessible that meetings become longer and longer. There are requisite amounts of communication that all organizations need to function. The question becomes how will this be delivered; in small, consistent doses or one massive dose?
Before you answer, consider the following paradox. From a managerial perspective small, consistent doses of communication are an inefficient use of time. Large doses of communication are an effective use of time.
But from a leadership perspective, small, consistent doses of communication are effective. Large doses of communication are ineffective. Who are you a manager or a leader?
Think. Work. Achieve.