Lean Meetings: Clearly Defined Roles

Once you have defined the meeting purpose it is important to define meeting roles needed to ensure an effective and efficient meeting.  The most important roles to identify are:  

Owner

Facilitator 

Participants

The meeting owner is ultimately responsible for the success of the meeting.  Poor meetings are a reflection of poor leadership by the meeting owner.  Often the owner is the senior leader in the group either due to organization or project role.  The owner convenes the meeting, selects the facilitator and participants, and secures resources required to conduct the meeting.  In "best case" scenarios, the meeting owner works with the facilitator to plan the meeting and is aware of both the content of the meeting and the process being employed to satisfy the meeting purpose.  A watch out is that in routine meetings the owner may forget their responsibility to ensure meeting success.  The meeting becomes another calendar entry and occurs with thought or preparation.  Over time this makes the routine meeting a time waster.

Facilitators are not logistics managers, note takes, technical resources, flip charters, or time keepers.  While they often do all of these things, the primary role of the facilitator is to manage the meeting process.  In "best case" scenarios the work begins with good meeting planning, continues through the meeting, and ensures good meeting follow-up.  The unique benefit the facilitator brings is expertise in human interaction and process tools.  The unique value of facilitation is that it creates a path to satisfy the meeting purpose and disrupts dysfunction.  A watch out is that facilitators too often either fail to take an active role in interrupting meeting dysfunction or happily accept secondary tasks (e.g. coffee is replenished, lunch is served, flip-chart pads are available, etc.).  My experience is that facilitation is often not seen as a specialize role requiring skills, knowledge, and capability developed over time.  Individuals, with good intent, are put into facilitation roles without knowing what to do, or how to do it.   This results in facilitators who sit quietly, or who spend their time taking notes or checking on the coffee.  In this case, the meeting owner and meeting participants see the facilitator adding little value and begin to conduct meetings without facilitation.  In cases where meetings do not have an identified facilitator, the meeting owner or a meeting participant must take on this role.  Over time, meetings without facilitation become time wasters.  

Participants are the line managers, subject matter experts, project stream leads, etc. that bring everything needed to engage whatever content is required to satisfy the meeting purpose.  They are invited because of their connection with the meeting purpose.  Primarily, participants engage with content.  Nevertheless, participants can help "course correct" when a meeting is becoming ineffective or inefficient.  In "best case" scenarios, participants understand the purpose of the meeting, why they are involved in the meeting, practice good meeting behaviors, and work to make the meeting increasingly more productive for everyone.  A watch out is that meetings are social and political events.  Having participants in the meeting who are not required to satisfy the meeting purpose becomes a time waster for those "along for the ride" and for the balance of the meeting participants.  Less frequently, not having the right people in the meeting or having disruptive meeting participants can also problematic.

Clearly defining roles for ad hoc, routine, and special meetings and ensuring the roles are performed to a high standard will dramatically improve meeting effectiveness and efficiency.  

Considering how much of our time is spent in meetings, it is surprising how little training we receive in school, at work, and in community settings to improve this vital community event!  Having owners, facilitators and participants understand their unique roles is a good step forward.