When acting as a leader of a meeting, how can you best contribute to the progress of the meeting

• Tweet

  Inhaltsverzeichnis Show

  • Four Major Stumbling Blocks
  • New Posture for the Chair
  • The Rotating Chair
  • Excerpts from a Meeting
  • Stating the Problem
  • Temporary Shelving
  • Spectrum Policy
  • Restating the Problem
  • Metaphoric Vacation
  • Toward the Solution
  • Chairmanship Rotation
  • Rules for Chairmanship
  • Leadership Principles
  • Conclusion
  • List of Steps
  • When acting as a leader of the meeting how can you best contribute to the progress of the meeting?
  • What does it mean to lead a meeting?
  • Who should lead a meeting?

• Post

• Share

• Save

• Print

To the interested observer, a meeting is a kind of fishbowl in which he can watch the birth and early development of an idea. A good many of the new ideas in business today are born in meetings; and as a member of a company whose main interest is the creative and inventive processes, I am associated with a group that has studied the dynamics of literally hundreds of meetings over the last eight years. Our usual practice is to tape-record the proceedings and then to replay the tapes to discover what has actually been said by each member of the meeting at various junctures, the tone of voice used, and the results that followed—in much the same way that a football coach studies motion pictures of his team’s games and practices at slow projection speeds to analyze the team in action.

Certain facts about meetings are obvious. Foremost, for my present purposes, the chairman of a meeting is its heart and will. His function and object is to run a productive operation; and to the extent that his group discusses what they are supposed to discuss and the extent that decisions are made and projects and deadlines are assigned to individuals and teams, the chairman is a successful leader.

Our experience indicates, however, that even the successful chairman usually has serious problems and deficiencies of which he is often unaware. Some of our observations on this point have been quite surprising and have made us question many of the assumptions commonly made about the proper role of the chair; and, taken as a whole, our observations strongly suggest that the chairman of a meeting must apply certain novel operating techniques if he wants the people he has gathered together to generate their full voltage. I shall try to show what these techniques are and how they can increase the productivity of the group.

Most of my company’s research is done with businessmen. We observe meetings sometimes in company offices and sometimes in our Cambridge experimental environment; the environment seems to make little significant difference to behavior. Usually the group is working on an internal problem, one that is important to its company. Also, since we find seven to be the maximum number of people that can work together productively in a meeting, our work has for some time been limited to groups of seven people or fewer. It is the small business meeting, then, with which I shall be concerned.

Four Major Stumbling Blocks

First, meetings are often used very casually. In many cases there is only a vague notion about the objective of a meeting, and quite often objectives are mixed. This is likely to be true where the chairman wants to give information, get ideas, or see how members react to some ideas of his own. None of these objectives, clearly enough, is wrong in itself; but unless the chairman provides precise knowledge of what he expects, the members can easily become confused. An agenda alone does not solve this problem.

Second, meetings are frequently used to solve problems, to plan, and to help make decisions. Creativity is a vital component of such meetings because it develops alternatives, enriches possibilities, and projects consequences. There is evidence, however, that chairmen habitually, albeit unwittingly, discourage creativity and free speculation.

Third, the chairman is likely to use his power unwisely. He is often the senior member (the boss), and he therefore has influence that transcends the meeting. It is accepted practice for him to exercise this power and for other members to play to it. The consequence is that his prejudices can inhibit the open proposal of alternatives and new ideas.

Fourth, we find in almost any meeting that there is a high level of antagonism toward ideas. For example:

• One participant (call him Mr. A) says, “I think it would be a good idea to shape our new dog food like a bone and make it chewier.” A second objects, “But there is already a dog bone on the market…” And a third adds, “And one of the strengths of the leading brand is that it’s like hamburger—it’s not chewy.” And so on.

When ideas are subjected to this kind of exchange, their value and potential are easily destroyed. The ideas of a new shape and a new texture are at least worth exploring, since they suggest possibilities for alternative paths of development; but the negative reflex one customarily observes against a new idea foreshortens these possibilities. The negative reflex also has a further effect: the person who has advanced a new idea or suggestion is a human being, and as such he identifies with his own suggestion. He perceives a negative reflex response as a personal put-down.

In many circumstances Mr. A will be too mature and sophisticated an individual to acknowledge this attack, a fact which merely compounds the problem. We have asked many Mr. A’s how they feel about such criticism, and most protest that they do not feel personally attacked. If you follow Mr. A on a tape recording, however, you will note that at the earliest opportunity he gives his critics as good as he got. Thus he himself contributes to the foreshortening effect. The extent and effects of this kind of early negative response are quite remarkable. Not the least remarkable aspect is that if a member is polite, his negativity is considered acceptable by all; it is considered part of the ordinary give-and-take of daily meeting life.

There are other stumbling blocks built into the traditional meeting, but the careful and conscientious chairman can reduce or eliminate all of them. His first step must be to recognize subtle destruction when it occurs; then he will know better how to use it to general advantage or to discourage it.

New Posture for the Chair

We have asked hundreds of chairmen of task-oriented meetings about the responsiveness of their groups. Their most common remarks are revealing: “It’s hard work to get good suggestions from my people,” or “I find that the group depends on me for most of the ideas.” Our observations tell us that very few chairmen are able to recognize and sort out helpful responses from those that, in fact, are valueless, negative, or damaging. This is true not because they are not capable of doing so but because they are not in the habit of doing so. The chairman usually does not realize that his role includes being a careful, judicious listener.

Furthermore, it appears that most of the time the leader does not appreciate the possibilities of his role. The traditional image of the strong chairman is that of an executive who guides the discussions, hews to an agenda, makes instant judgments of relevance and usefulness, and parcels out assignments. He has a general goal; namely, to get things done. He assumes that the present structure of the chair, agenda, and guided (or perhaps free-wheeling) discussion is an effective one, indeed, the only one; his assumptions on this score go unexamined because things do get done and goals are accomplished. The result is that the old-fashioned chairman wastes talent, both his own and the group’s, and therefore time and money as well.

The meeting that is “sabotaged” by the traditional image of the chair and its application has certain familiar symptoms: boredom and impatience, obviously, and more subtly, hostility and rivalry. Perhaps the worst symptom, as I have already suggested, is immediate negativity to new ideas and the consequent need to defend one’s point of view and oneself; and the worst indictment of the traditional system is that negativity is commonly accepted as useful and realistic.

Our experiments with creative group leadership make it clear that the chairman can multiply the effectiveness of his people. To do so, however, he must adopt a nontraditional attitude. He must come to view himself as the servant of the group (in the same way that the group views itself as the servant of the objective of the meeting), and as such he must devote his entire attention to helping the group use its wits. Later in this article I shall make a number of concrete suggestions as to how he can do this.

The Rotating Chair

There is quite a bit of evidence that the traditional chairman is self-serving and manipulative. For example, he is likely to see to it that his own ideas get special treatment, and usually he has developed a sensitive ear to responses that support his own preconceived notions. It is also quite clear that members recognize this, resent it, and struggle against it—sometimes openly, but more often subtly. When we have questioned participants about the behavior of the chairman in task meetings, common responses are: “He doesn’t listen to my ideas,” or, “I think I could run a better meeting than he does.”

A habit of egocentricity in the chair severely limits the productivity of a meeting, and our recommendation is commensurately radical—rotate the chair. We believe it is important that every member of a meeting group regularly have the opportunity to lead—to test and shape his capability, and to taste the responsibility of sitting at the end of the table.

Excerpts from a Meeting

We assume that the purpose of a meeting is to make the fullest possible use of each participant, and we believe that the traditional chairman must redirect his energies and skills if he is to achieve this goal. He must first of all create an atmosphere in which a participant need never defend himself or his idea. When relieved of the burden of self-protection, a member can wholeheartedly devote himself to speculation and support, to the processes that produce the rich variations out of which fresh alternatives are born and exciting decisions are made. How can the chairman accomplish this? Before developing my set of rules for conducting a meeting, I should like to develop a model of procedure and with it some concepts of good policy.

Stating the Problem

In small, task-oriented meetings, the conference room should be arranged so the chairman can keep notes that all can see. A blackboard is good; large newsprint pads are better, since one can save the sheets. Initially, at least, it is useful to operate within a loose step-by-step framework.

The first step is to write a brief statement of the problem. This need not be detailed, since there is or should be expert knowledge about the problem in the group. (By the way, these experts can be depended on to keep the group honest.) To illustrate, let us expand the case of the company which is entering the dog-food market:

• The experts are Mr. B of marketing and Mr. C of R&D. Both men have been involved with the development of the new product. With their coaching the leader writes, “Problem: How can we enter the pet-food market with an advantage over the competition?”

The next step is for the chairman to ask the experts for a more detailed explanation of the problem. As they talk about their experiments and findings, the chairman and other members will think of questions. They should ask them. The experts will be more interesting when responding to questions than when lecturing, and usually they will enjoy it more, too. The chairman should listen to these questions with much more than casual attention.

Temporary Shelving

There is a great temptation for a member to demonstrate his incisive, penetrating thinking at this stage:

• Mr. D asks, “Is our real problem to figure out an advantage? Aren’t we really trying to capitalize on the acceptance that the leading brand has attained?”

The chairman does not devalue this question; but since he knows it can lead to endless discussion of opinions which do little or nothing to help with the problem at this point, he says, “Mr. D, if you believe the real problem is other than stated, will you please write down the problem as you see it, and we will take it up later as a subproblem.”

Mr. D then makes a note: “How can we capitalize on the acceptance that the leading brand has received?”

Spectrum Policy

As the experts discuss the problem, both members and chairman may think of possible solutions. These should be voiced and treated with care, as should every idea. For example:

• Mr. A says, “I think it would be a good idea to shape our dog food like a bone and make it chewier.” Without evaluating this suggestion, the chairman refers it to the experts, Mr. B and Mr. C.

“But there is already a dog bone,” Mr. B starts to answer.

“Just a second, Mr. B,” the chairman intervenes, “first tell us what you like about Mr. A’s suggestion.”

Mr. B thinks hard for a moment before responding. “Well, this change in shape is a good idea. Mr. A, if I get his meaning, wants to use shape to make our product more appealing to the buyer. We know the buyer’s view of the food is a key element—the dog doesn’t care much. In fact, the dog would probably be happy if we made the product look like table scraps.”

What the chairman has done is to force Mr. B to think about the positive values of Mr. A’s suggestion. As I have said before, one can presume that Mr. B will think of negative points on his own, as a matter of course; thus Mr. B now sees a range of values in the suggestion, a range from good to bad—a spectrum of values. The chairman has enforced the so-called spectrum policy, and by so doing he has accomplished more than may be apparent. Note that Mr. B has continued on to identify some approaches for the group that he himself finds acceptable. Note also that his approval signals Mr. A that he is considering the suggestion on its own merits, thinking about its advantages and disadvantages and not those of Mr. A. Let’s return to the example:

• “Now, what troubles you about the idea of a chewy bone, Mr. B?” asks the chairman. He replies, “I’m worried about the shape. Although the bone is traditionally associated with dogs and is good from that viewpoint, it isn’t new to the market. One of our competitors is using it.”

If the chairman is to use each participant to the full, he must see to it that everyone’s views are considered. Another participant may have a contribution to make that will meet Mr. B’s objection, and the chairman ought to encourage such contributions by making it clear that the meeting will respect and listen to any attempt to help. Thus:

• Mr. D says, “Mr. B, your concern over the bone shape not being new suggests to me that we might go in a completely new texture direction: let’s have an ‘Instant Breakfast’ dog food or a ‘Metrecal’ dog food.”

If the experts consider this a possible solution, they say so and the leader records and saves it; if they don’t, then the chairman lets the discussion continue, with the spectrum policy, until everyone has a working understanding of the problem.

Restating the Problem

Next, the chairman asks that each member of the group write one or more statements of the problem as he, the member, understands it. The chairman then records these for all to see, adding any that occur to him.

It is at this point also that the various subproblems are recorded:

1. “How can we capitalize on the acceptance of the leading brand?”

2. “Why don’t we devise a pet food that makes addicts out of pets?”

3. “How can we make pet food that perfectly fits the buyer’s image of what the pet needs and loves?”

4. “Why can’t we devise a pet food that the pet will choose every time in a taste test?”

5. “How can we make a pet food that the pet will eat and like so much he sends a message of thanks to his owner?”

I have deliberately chosen some of the more wishful subproblems. At first these may disturb practical people because they seem unrealistic and therefore useless. On the contrary, we have found that, at this point, the wilder and more wishful the statement, the more likely it is to evoke additional possible solutions. This stage gives each member the opportunity to make an official declaration of the problem as he understands it or of the goal he wishes to attain. The more of these, the better—and the more differences between them, the better. Imagination and temporary irresponsibility should be welcome.

Metaphoric Vacation

Next, the chairman selects one of the subproblems or restatements listed (never his own) and notes it—for example, the third one. He then applies a technique that outrages many people. I advocate it not for its shock value but because in thousands of experiments it has actually increased the probability that the group will ultimately develop a novel and profitable approach to its problem. The chairman creates an artificial, instant vacation from the problem. This technique is modeled after the practice of nearly every successful problem solver: when he has worked hard on a problem and no satisfactory solution has been forthcoming—when he has “gone dry”—he temporarily puts the problem out of mind with confidence that later, when his mind has rested, some new clue to solution will come to him. Thus:

• The chairman instructs, “Please put the problem out of your mind. Now, can anyone think of an example of a striking image in the world of weather?”

“A thunderhead,” answers Mr. A. Others also offer examples. The chairman records all of them and then listens to comments. He then selects one of the examples, and the members discuss it.

Mr. D: “A thunderhead is beautiful, but there are dangerous forces inside it.”

Mr. B: “If aircraft had not explored them, you probably wouldn’t know about the dangerous updrafts and downdrafts.”

Vacation time should last from 5 to 15 minutes, depending on the members’ skill in focusing off the original problem and the chairman’s ability to sense the members’ involvement in the vacation.

Toward the Solution

As his next step the chairman should bring the vacation to a close. In our example:

• The chairman asks the members to return to the problem in question (Number 3) and to use the seemingly irrelevant comments about thunderheads to suggest unthought-of lines of speculation.

Mr. D comments, “This idea of hidden danger in the thunderhead—it makes me think of hidden meanings. Could we perhaps put some sort of hidden meaning in our product?”

The chairman supports the idea: “Do you mean that we should somehow put extra meaning in dog food?”

“Yes, but I don’t know how.”

Mr. B then enters the conversation with the suggestion that they should treat dog food as though it is more important than dog food. To this, Mr. C replies, “OK, OK, we can treat it like people food!”

This discussion leads to the notion that a dog food exactly like hamburg could be marketed directly through the butcher. It would be put in the regular meat case and treated as meat in every sense. Members express concern about the stores’ willingness to go along with this; but since the group can only guess about the stores’ reactions, it is decided to test the idea.

A further idea comes out of this discussion, one that might have been considered out of order in a traditional meeting on dog food. One member suggests that the company market a completely synthetic “hamburg” for people. Mr. C believes that it is possible to achieve the correct texture and flavor; and Mr. B supports the idea because of low product costs, good storing qualities, and data suggesting that some people eat pet food.

Meetings in the style of the one just described make heavy demands on members and the chairman, but most participants thrive once they understand the rules of the road and feel the freedom to range.

Each suggestion receives the attention of every member; prestige derives from supporting any idea and thinking of ways to overcome the very elements that arouse concern; and each beginning idea is enlarged and modified until it reflects the constructive energies of the group. If a flaw remains, it is identified, and the idea is put aside, perhaps to be used later in a fresh context.

Chairmanship Rotation

Speculation and suggestions for solutions should continue as long after the vacation as contributions continue to contain new and possibly useful elements. This period may last for 30 minutes or more. When the chairman sees the group is beginning to cover ground previously worked over, he should then end the discussion and a new chairman should take over.

Leadership in such a meeting is quite different from participation. But to learn to lead is to learn how to participate; and since the chair rotates, everyone learns.

Rotation of the chair presents a difficulty in most companies, as indeed does any change in tradition. When an executive makes this a practice, however, he finds that he has lost none of his authority or responsibility but rather that he has increased both for other leaders. He also learns that he must submit to the healthy discipline of constructive behavior. An authoritarian finds this irksome—that is, until he sees the payoffs.

Rules for Chairmanship

This concept of the chair has been developed over ten years of experimentation. At one time we set up meetings in which every member had equal power; and although all the participants made a conscious attempt to function without a leader, the results were far from satisfactory. At other times we worked with groups who were allowed to decide by themselves what they wanted to do about leadership; the results were no better. Both situations have convinced me that the chances for a successful meeting are reduced if the group has no recognized leader.

I also assert that the element which has done most to disrupt these meetings is the cycle of challenge, defense, and counterchallenge that originates in the habit of negative reaction to a new idea. The negativity, rigidity, confusion, and rivalry which result from this cycle interfere with the purpose of the meeting; and it is in the context of this realization that we have formulated our present concept of the role of the chairman.

In the meetings that you yourself attend, you can probably observe a strong current of self-service in each participant. Self-regard is a necessary component of a healthy personality, and I do not mean to say that one should give up his identity when he enters a meeting. Quite the contrary: a meeting must have individual personalities and styles if it is to generate the diverse analytical and metaphorical material that makes it productive.

I do believe, however, that a meeting can be truly productive and successful only if the socially acceptable, destructive behaviors I described have been diverted or eradicated. As I noted before, such behaviors do not surprise the participant; what surprises and shocks him when he listens to a tape recording of the session is the extent of the destruction caused and the discovery that such behavior patterns exist in his own personality. I have found that there is a tendency for an individual to say, “Whatever the others have done, at least I had a constructive approach to the problem.” This is usually not quite true—almost every individual is pressed into a defensive and retaliatory frame of mind sooner or later—and he realizes it when he hears the playback of his performance.

Group members are ordinarily more than willing to try a new approach when these facts have been made clear. It is the ground rules for such a new approach that I will present in the remainder of this article.

This new approach differentiates the chairman’s responsibilities from those of the other group members. The reason for this is that if the leader or chairman competes with his group, as he almost always does in traditional meetings, then the battle for self-preservation is joined once more; group members vie for the chairman’s favor, and he tries to control them in return. It is never a fair contest—the chairman always wins because he holds the power.

Leadership Principles

This brings us to the ground rules for the new approach—a series of ten leadership principles. I have stated them in such a way that you can put yourself into the role of chairman.

1. Never compete with the group members:

Most people object to this rule at first, saying, “But I have ideas, too. Isn’t it more constructive for me to put them in the pot?” This is an important point; you do not want to lose any ideas that might be useful. However, it usually happens that if you contribute your own ideas throughout the meeting, you will unconsciously favor them. When the group members sense this favoritism, their sense of commitment will be reduced, and the probability of the meeting being successful drops. Accordingly, I believe that specific times should be set aside when you can contribute your own ideas:

• During the explanation phase and the solution phase just before the vacation.

• At the end of the vacation, but only after you have restated a member’s idea and thus demonstrated your support. (If you thoroughly understand what the member has in mind and can think of a way to build on it or add to it, go ahead.)

• Finally, after all other ideas have been thoroughly explored.

The general rule, thus, is to give all members’ ideas precedence over your own.

2. Listen to the group members:

Permit the speaker to paint any picture he wishes; your aim is to understand his point of view. It is good practice to paraphrase a member’s points to be sure you understand them to his satisfaction. (The chairman of the dog-food case example used this technique.) This sounds easy, but it’s not. You will catch yourself making judgments, tuning out, evoking your own thoughts, and otherwise failing to really comprehend what the speaker is saying.

The importance of listening cannot be overemphasized. Skill in good listening has a pervasive effect on the group’s productivity. During your tenure as chairman, you must carry out repeated transactions with each member. You must listen to each person and prove that you understand. You must establish your intent: “My job is to understand what you have in mind and help your thought along. I am not here to make a judgment.” This posture satisfies group members and also creates an atmosphere in which all ideas are considered worthy of group consideration.

3. Don’t permit anyone to be put on the defensive:

Assume there is value in any notion a member offers; search out that value, no matter how wild or irrelevant the statement may appear. Keep your finger on the psychological pulse of each member. You must watch out in particular for the apparently lighthearted defensive remark. Humor and laughter are often used as a before-the-fact defense against attack, and a member will often retreat with a comment such as “I wasn’t really serious about this idea.” A good leader also probes any laughter he hears because the elegance of an emerging idea may be intuitively pleasing before anyone is consciously aware of what the idea really is. The value of these intuitive urgings must not be underestimated.

There are a number of procedures at your disposal for reinforcing an atmosphere of nondefensive response:

• In accepting a metaphorical contribution (such as “thunderhead”), never require a justification. For example, if Mr. C suggests “fireplug” as a response to your question, “Can you think of an example of a striking image in the world of weather?” treat it as though it is just as appropriate a response as “thunderhead.”

• If one group member disagrees with another’s statement during the vacation, accept both points of view as being potentially useful. Suppose a group is examining “filibuster”:

Mr. D: “A filibuster goes counter to the intent of the democratic process and should not be permitted.”

Mr. C: “I don’t see it that way at all. It permits a determined minority who may be right to bring concentrated attention to its dissent. They may even effect a compromise.”

Record both thoughts; you can’t determine ahead of time which will prove to be the more valuable.

• At the end of the vacation, at solution time, you may have to enforce the spectrum policy. If you see that a member (the expert is an especially likely person) is going to respond negatively, interrupt him to say, “Mr. B, tell us what you like about what Mr. D said.”

• When an idea falters, try to keep it alive by stressing its generality, trying for understanding, and asking for help. Suppose, for example, a group is trying to invent a thermos closure to replace the customary cork (it must be integral and loss-proof, and market tests have shown that the obvious suggestions—hinges, chains, and strings—are not acceptable):

Mr. A: “Well, of course you could always use springs.”

Mr. B: “Isn’t that a hinge?”

Chairman: “Let’s not be too concerned with the hinge problem for the moment. Mr. A, what do you have in mind?”

Mr. A: “I’m not sure, but I thought we could use some sort of a spring that would hold the thing closed.”

Chairman: “You know, this spring idea is intriguing. A spring has, in a sense, two positions—in one it has stored energy, and in the other the energy is released. Can we use this fact to help us?”

Mr. A: “This idea of two different positions—one might be open and the other closed.”

Mr. C (drawing): “How about this! The spring has a membrane on one side, and each end of the spring is attached to the side of the mouth here and here. You have a knob sticking up to work it. In the open position the spring pushes against this side. When it’s closed, it’s against the other side, and the membrane covers the mouth.”

Mr. D: “We could make the membrane out of closed-pore sponge and get insulation.”

By protecting Mr. A’s initial idea from Mr. B and by building on it and asking for help, you will have kept a weak idea alive until it has gained strength.

• If, after every attempt at building has been made, an idea is still lacking in substance, do not finally condemn it. Say, for example, “OK, we can’t seem to use this idea of making bowl-shaped dog food right now. Let’s put it aside, and maybe it will help us later.”

This is not idle politeness. I often see an idea that has been put aside early in a meeting reappear in a later context in which it becomes a key element in a possible solution.

• Avoid pinning down an individual. Do not say, “Mr. A, give me an example of a striking image in the world of weather.” Rather, address such a request to the entire group. No one should be pressured to produce an analogy; chances are this will only make him defensive.

4. Use every member of the group:

Nearly every group has talkative members and quiet members; you cannot afford to miss the contributions that the quiet ones can make. Once you have identified a quiet member, be careful not to pin him down; but when you ask for a response, you might rest your eyes on him first, going on to the others only when he gives no response.

You will also, on occasion, have a member who tries to dominate the meeting. He will have immediate responses and will go into endless detail if you listen. These people are usually bright and valuable, but they can ruin a meeting if permitted to run free. You must control such a person without alienating him (given rotation, he may be your boss). Here are three methods we have found useful in dealing with such situations:

• When you believe that you understand the points he is making, say something like “Thank you, I’ve got it.”

• Avoid the compulsive talker’s eyes when you ask for a response.

• More drastically, when you ask for a response, look at someone other than the talker and hold up your hand to the latter in a casual stop sign.

If none of these methods is effective, and if it is impractical to have a frank talk with the dominating member, ask him to listen to a tape recording of the meeting. That usually does it.

5. Keep the energy level high:

This may seem to be an impossible assignment, but it is not. The energy of a group depends on many things, including some you cannot control (such as a member’s hangover). But there is much you can do toward keeping interest high. Here are some suggestions that I have seen work:

• Your interest, alertness, and intensity are contagious; so when you take over leadership, give it your best. Don’t be reluctant to use body English to underscore your involvement with the group. Move around, move close to the member who’s talking, use your hands—anything that’s comfortable for you will help to keep the group active.

• Select areas (nature, weather) and examples that are of interest to you. If you are caught up in the proceedings, you will show it, and your team will respond accordingly.

• Keep the meeting moving at a fast pace. Don’t spend too long on any one step. Watch the members of the group closely. You can quickly spot the beginnings of boredom and counteract it.

• Humor is invaluable. If amusing associations occur to you, bring them out. When members joke, show that you enjoy it too—if you really do, that is. You are probably not a professional comedian, on the other hand, so don’t try to be. Just be yourself, encourage humor, but don’t let the meeting degenerate into a storytelling session.

• Challenge is good. Ask difficult questions, such as “Give me an example of convenience from the world of geography.”

• Surprise the group. When you are comfortable with the steps (statement, suggestions, vacation, solutions), mix them up. Experiment with possible solutions from unexpected points. For instance, if you have had interesting metaphorical responses, go immediately to possible solutions. If you sense that the team is on vacation accidently, as it were, and that their minds have been away from the problem, go to possible solutions. Both the element of surprise and a fast-moving meeting are particularly important right after lunch or late in the afternoon, when a group is likely to be tired.

6. Keep the members informed about where they are and what is expected of them:

Here are some methods for doing this:

• Keep progress notes on the easel pads.

• When you move from one step to another, make this clear by the questions you ask and by what you write on the pad.

• When the group is deeply involved in a discussion of a metaphorical point, restate where you are when you want to go on to another response. (This helps to keep the meeting moving and helps keep the team with you.)

7. Keep your eye on the expert:

When the members are moving toward a solution, watch the expert’s reactions with great care. Always enforce the spectrum policy; but when the expert shows interest in an idea, try to give him more of whatever he wants. And if he responds to a line of speculation, urge him to take over.

Most of the time the group as a whole will produce only tenuous conclusions at this late stage. If the expert is working hard, he will be listening for clues—statements which are suggestive of a new approach. These may not be valid in themselves, but with his depth of knowledge he may be able to reshape them into valuable ideas.

8. Remember that you are not permanent:

Since a meeting is more effective with a leader than without one, and since each member, perhaps unconsciously, wants to be a leader, I have suggested a compromise: rotation of leadership. One great benefit of rotation is the chastening and beneficial effect it has on the chairman who has been accustomed to exercising his power and authority in the traditional way.

Experiments with this procedure have produced valuable effects other than this one. When you know you will get your chance to lead, you are more willing to commit yourself to a path of thought even if you are critical of it. This rotation procedure breeds strong motivation in a member to stay with an idea and to cooperate with the present chairman. You learn conclusively that if you doze and doodle while Mr. A leads, Mr. A’s mind will be elsewhere when you lead. Every leader discovers that he badly needs all the support he can get.

The rotation of leadership not only adds a vital interest to the meeting, it demonstrates as well that the manager is concerned with developing subordinates. In the final analysis, the manager gives up none of his authority and responsibility. He has added to the data available for discovering a course of action. He has also made it clear that the contributions of his subordinates are valued; this results in increased satisfaction, self-regard, and interest.

9. Do not manipulate the group:

First of all, manipulation is an extremely difficult thing to get away with—in most meetings members are only too aware that you may try to lead them down the garden path, and they are very resentful of such an approach. Furthermore, manipulation seems to be destructive to the main purpose of the meeting, which is to bring valuable creativity to bear on a problem of real importance. If you know in advance what conclusions you want the group to reach, you obviously have no real motive or inclination to generate creative discussion.

On the other hand, you do have clear, legitimate authority and responsibility to make certain choices in procedure; these choices aim the members’ minds in a specific direction. But beyond that you must not ask leading questions or try to control responses to suit your own taste. Similarly, as I mentioned previously, you should be careful to avoid choosing one of your own statements of the problem at the start of the meeting. Such a choice will signal the group that you are serving yourself. You should contribute problems but not use your own. If your problem statement is good, some leader will eventually use it.

10. Work hard at the technique of chairmanship:

Complete abstention from manipulation is difficult but critical. People ask, “How can I project energy and enthusiasm when I don’t feel either? Isn’t it faking if I do?” or, “When the group is not giving me interesting responses, what do I do then—pretend?” No, you try!

Between learning the procedures and mastering them, there often comes a time of some frustration. The newness of the method has worn off, but you have not yet perfected your chairmanship technique. This is the time when boredom and disillusionment may be greatest. After continued use of the method and some experiment with wording your responses to the group, you begin to devote your attention more to what is happening and less to the method. The meetings will begin to move more naturally both for you and for the other group members, and will become more enjoyable as a result. For instance, as you develop skill in listening, you will discover that you hear more things that interest you.

It is like playing football. At first, when the team drills and struggles with the mechanics, it is hard work. Later, when the players no longer need to devote energy to learning the rules and the plays, it becomes more fun. Then the team can work together harmoniously and effectively, taking increasing pleasure in the group sport of winning football games.

I do not believe you will need to fake enthusiasm; in time, you will bring it with you to the meeting and it will act like yeast for the whole group. With their enthusiasm will come more provocative and more constructive and usable responses.

Conclusion

Leadership of the kind described is difficult to achieve. To the executive who considers it, it may seem to threaten power and independent decision making. Actually, most leaders depend heavily on their subordinates. If you as a manager can accept this fact and make greater use of subordinates’ capabilities, you can increase your achievement. Perhaps the most difficult aspects are learning to practice nonjudgmental leadership and gaining the ability to follow someone else, perhaps a junior.

I realize that no one can possibly hold to all the principles I have suggested at one time. After years of practice, I still forget some of the behaviors that I myself have helped to design; and you, too, will probably make mistakes. But if you learn to observe most of the rules, you will usually be able to demonstrate your good intentions to the group; they will overlook an occasional slip—particularly after they themselves have experienced the demands of leadership.

The activities I have described are really quite natural ways of thinking and reacting. Listening, supporting the good in a weak idea, using an analogy to renew speculation, taking a vacation from a problem—few of these activities should be strange to you. I have simply gathered them together and showed that they can become the sinews of an attitude of cooperation and creativity.

Although this attitude may be difficult to adopt at the outset, it is possible to attain. And when it is done, the rewards to both the individual and his organization are great.

List of Steps

If you wish to experiment with a meeting of the sort I have been describing, here is a list of the basic steps involved:

1. State the problem.

2. Discuss it, with possible solutions.

3. Restate the problem as each participant understands it.

4. Select one of the restatements.

5. Take the group on vacation.

a. Select one key element (a striking image, say).

b. Pick out an area in which to concentrate (weather).

c. Then ask for examples of the key element (striking images in weather).

6. Select one example (“thunderhead”) and ask for further examination.

7. End the vacation and ask for possible solutions to the original problem.

8. When a solution is reached, or when the wells have run dry, relinquish the chair to another member of the group.

A version of this article appeared in the January 1969 issue of Harvard Business Review.

When acting as a leader of the meeting how can you best contribute to the progress of the meeting?

What does it mean to lead a meeting?

Who should lead a meeting?