Marisa T. Martin

We put a lot of effort into What and How and less into communicating Why. We do think about Why, a lot, in fact – hours upon hours of meetings about Why - but then we jump right to What and How and don’t communicate the Why.

I read Patrick Lencioni’s fantastic “Death by Meetings” two weekends ago and have been thinking about how to improve our meetings ever since. We assume that information will cascade down the management chain with accuracy and immediacy. We’re lucky to get either one, much less both, so our teams often feel like they’re out of the loop. We have a fantastic office grapevine that fills the void, but not perfectly nor always accurately.

My first thought was to hurdle the layers of management with our blog (yes, we have an internal blog which you’ll hear more about), but not only are we hesitant to document every single thing for fear that it will be outdated by the time it publishes, we also don’t want to undermine the management structure. Information is good, yes, but a positive relationship with your manager is priceless.

What then? If we can’t go straight to the source by publishing information almost real-time, we need to get better at the cascading thing, and that means we need to get better at meetings.

“Better at Meetings” = accurate, useful, and relevant information delivered by the appropriate person at the appropriate time.

Next question: How? Do you prescribe to managers how we want them to lead? (No.) Do you suggest effective methods for leading? (Perhaps.) Do you use case studies or research to make our case, or is anecdotal feedback enough? (Don’t know. Depends.) On a personal note, is this the most effective use of my role? (In impact, perhaps. In measurable impact, perhaps not.)

It’s hard to stay focused and engaged when you’re talking into a little piece of plastic. I should know: I am fully remote, working from my too-quiet home office almost 100% of the time (until I get stir-crazy and head to my nearest overpriced coffee shop).

After a series of on-site meetings a few weeks ago, I was blown away by the recollection that meetings used to be much easier. So much easier! You can see me, I can see you, we can talk about life and kids and laugh together – or not, which we can decide together through body language.

While I haven’t found an answer for virtual body language – short of webcams, which can be frustratingly difficult to use in the corporate world – I have found a trick that helps me stay focused during roundtables: photos. Before a meeting, I’ll pull up a photo of each participant and keep them on my screen. Talking to the picture feels strange at first, but it works, I’m telling you, it works.

In fact, it works so well that I’ll be including speaker photos in the corner of our presentation decks for big meetings. I say this all the time, and it’s so true: anymore, we’re all remote from someone on our team. So if the boss is in North America, we’ll display his photo to the folks in India and vice versa. I’ll let you knew how that goes.

What if you don’t have a spiffy corporate directory with photographs? Use fake ones. Have a library of faces and pick a few for each meeting. Really!

I don't know how I missed it. For the past year I've been struggling with the awareness that I'm sometimes bored to tears during meetings -- my own meetings. Nothing is worse than being bored by the sound of your own voice.

Well, maybe one thing is worse: silence. I've found myself thinking highly and positively of anyone willing to speak up and save me from a collaborative meeting gone bad. I've critiqued the questions I use to ask for involvement, I've asked for input, and I've listened frantically (yes, you can listen frantically) on every meeting I've been able to wrangle an invitation for, but my meetings still suck.

Then I read "Death by Meeting" by Patrick Lencioni.


How did I miss this man's books? Written as "business parables," they're interesting and easy reads, perfect for a flight or train trip. Despite the simple language, though, I was thoroughly engaged.

His premise: meetings, like movies, need conflict to be interesting and context to be productive. It's a fascinating and simple analogy. Read more here.