In short, by assigning who is accountable prior to engaging a discussion around details guarantees that at least one person is fully involved in creating a VitalTalk (vital discussion) on critical issues. Think about when you have been in meetings and you have nothing assigned to you...no skin in the game. How engaged do you stay? Typically, we do not get focused until our subject matter arises or a topic impacts us directly. Until then, we are lightly attentive. If the meeting holds no content for our direct and sometimes even indirect concerns we can’t wait to get out of there. “Why am I here” would be a good question for the meeting coordinator in this circumstance.
Synopsis of Consultative Style from article 4
This style leans more on fundamentals of coaching and leveraging diverse thinking and behavioral inclinations. Here is how it works: Topics are surfaced and prioritized by vote. The person(s) responsible for each item is determined (typically by the senior leader in agreement with the one who will be held accountable), these leaders gather critical information from others for the completion of the project, they lead the effort to provide solutions. Decisions are, therefore, more mature when made, responsibilities for actions are determined, timelines are established and agreed upon, actions are taken and future intermediate meetings review progress. This approach to meetings though more involved than the autocratic approach (or perhaps a little slower on the front end) leads to higher quality decisions in complex fast paced environments.
Note that in this approach individuals who will be held accountable for reaching the goals are assigned before gathering points of view, information and details.
Synopsis of Consultative Style from article 4
This style leans more on fundamentals of coaching and leveraging diverse thinking and behavioral inclinations. Here is how it works: Topics are surfaced and prioritized by vote. The person(s) responsible for each item is determined (typically by the senior leader in agreement with the one who will be held accountable), these leaders gather critical information from others for the completion of the project, they lead the effort to provide solutions. Decisions are, therefore, more mature when made, responsibilities for actions are determined, timelines are established and agreed upon, actions are taken and future intermediate meetings review progress. This approach to meetings though more involved than the autocratic approach (or perhaps a little slower on the front end) leads to higher quality decisions in complex fast paced environments.
Note that in this approach individuals who will be held accountable for reaching the goals are assigned before gathering points of view, information and details.
"Did We Just Have A Good Meeting" Series
"Did We Just Have A Good Meeting? I'm Not Sure." (1): Leveraging Diverse Thinking & Behavioral Attributes
"Did We Just Have A Good Meeting? I'm Not Sure." (2): VitalTalks, Clarity & Ineffective Meetings
"Did We Just Have A Good Meeting? I'm Not Sure." (3a): VitalTalks, Vital Behavior & Persuasion
"Did We Just Have A Good Meeting? I'm Not Sure." (3b):VitalTalks, Vital Behavior & Persuasion
"Did We Just Have A Good Meeting? I'm Not Sure." (4): Meeting Styles
"Did We Just Have A Good Meeting? I'm Not Sure." (1): Leveraging Diverse Thinking & Behavioral Attributes
"Did We Just Have A Good Meeting? I'm Not Sure." (2): VitalTalks, Clarity & Ineffective Meetings
"Did We Just Have A Good Meeting? I'm Not Sure." (3a): VitalTalks, Vital Behavior & Persuasion
"Did We Just Have A Good Meeting? I'm Not Sure." (3b):VitalTalks, Vital Behavior & Persuasion
"Did We Just Have A Good Meeting? I'm Not Sure." (4): Meeting Styles
RSS Feed