One Step Closer To...

“I think we went off trail at that split boulder,” Rick shouted from the rear of our hiking group.

“This spur might loop around,” Bridgette suggested from the lead. “Or do we need to double back?”

“It’s getting late. Let’s double back so we can still summit,” Rick replied.

We retraced our steps to the boulder and turned East, onto what we assumed was our intended route. We traveled beneath an overhang, which obscured the peak. Thirty minutes later, we found ourselves doubling back again to regain the trail. Our most experienced trekkers sensed we had wandered off track even when they couldn’t locate a trail marker. We trusted them and followed their redirections.

Meetings as Expeditions

During a recent quarterly planning session, the facilitator said, “Folks, this architectural discussion took us off topic. Let’s get back on track.” The comment led me to compare and contrast the paths teams travel while conducting meetings and while ascending mountains. A trekking group faces physical constraints: strength and stamina, available daylight, and the terrain. The group cannot jump from one trail or destination to another at will—they must place one foot in front of the other. A detour may reveal a new vista or it may squander precious time and energy.

Meetings, in contrast, impose few physical constraints. They have defined timeboxes but can run over with minimal consequences. All participants should engage completely but some may multitask without endangering their colleagues. Minimal constraints make meetings susceptible to detours and digressions. Anyone can say anything at any time to lead the group astray. The likelihood the group will pursue a newly introduced topic increases if it’s introduced by a person of authority. Despite the lack of physical constraints and consequences, a group in a meeting attempts to metaphorically travel to a destination they deem valuable and that they want to celebrate achieving. Therefore, they can borrow concepts from the trekking world.

Apply Constraints to Increase Efficiency

Schedule and budget constraints often receive a bad wrap. We may use them as scapegoats for our failure to reach, or even pursue, a desired outcome. But we can use constraints as tools to streamline our discussions and to increase our likelihood of success. Here are four constraints that can keep a meeting on the best path:

1. Define an objective and gain buy in from all participates to focus on the task:
2. “We’re here to make a Go/No Go decision for the product release.”
3. “Let’s define the criteria for evaluating Product Owner job applicants.”
4. “Within the hour, we’ll prioritize the features we intend to fund this quarter.”
5. Each participant should explain how their contribution advances the group toward the defined goal:
6. “I believe we want job applicants who will defend the team from distractions. Who supports this notion?”
7. As each participant joins the discussion, they should connect their input to the previous person’s contribution. This limits the possibility the group will jump from the current topic to an unrelated one and go off track.
8. “I agree Product Owners must defend their teams. How would we test for that trait during the interview process?”
9. The facilitator should highlight sidetracks and require the team to select which fork to travel:?
10. “We set out to list Product Owner traits but we shifted to discussing the differences between Product Owners and Product Managers. Do we want to pursue the new topic or place it in the parking lot and return to our original topic?”?

Build a Discussion Chain?

When traversing dangerous terrain, trekkers may connect themselves with lengths of rope to catch one another in the event of a fall. As described in Step #3 above, meeting participants can form a metaphorical chain. As each participant offers input, they connect it directly to the previous participant’s contribution to ensure the group places one foot in front of the next rather than making rhetorical leaps that may require circling back or losing sight of the objective.?

Participants can use one of four linking mechanisms when making their contributions:

• Reinforce the previous person’s assertion or proposal by citing data and by offering thoughts on implementation steps.
• Refine their predecessor’s idea by asking clarifying questions or requesting examples.
• Refute the current proposal, explaining their rationale, and potentially offering a counter proposal.
• Redirect the discussion by arguing the group has a more pressing topic to tackle, perhaps one that is a prerequisite for the current topic.?

The facilitator plays a key role highlighting the established links or requesting participants to provide omitted links. When a “redirect” link arises, the facilitator guides the group through the decision making process—should they pursue the newly introduced fork, or stay on the current path. The facilitator should avoid stifling productive exchanges that advance the group toward their goal while remaining vigilant for disconnected trains for thought and digressions.

Visualize the Discussion

A hiking group tracks its progress on a trail map or with a GPS app. Similarly, a team in a meeting benefits from diagramming their progress in real time. If the team has traveled the route previously, which would be the case with a Quarterly Business Review, a “map” may exist in the form of a presentation template and an agenda. If the team lacks a map, which will be the case when making novel decisions, they can create a map as their discussion unfolds. Many visualization tools exist for this purpose, such as Miro and Mural or the whiteboard functions in Microsoft Teams and Google Meet.

Visualizing progress helps a group gain momentum as the destination comes into view, establishes linkage between the stages of the journey, and, perhaps most importantly, shunts detours into dedicated journeys rather than depleting time and energy from the current trek.?

Example Discussion Maps

This map illustrates a poorly orchestrated discussion. The stages don’t link to one another. The group wandered off course early in the meeting, and ultimately failed to reach their destination, despite exceeding their timebox.

In contrast, this map demonstrates a team that followed a clear path. They identified a potential diversion and placed it in the parking lot. Since they maintained a good pace, they had time to pick up the parking lot item within the allocated timebox.

The map also serves colleagues who didn’t attend the meeting. They can see the route the group followed and the decisions they made along the way.

Celebrating the Win

We reached the summit that day and returned to our hut shortly after sunset. We were thrilled to ascend and descend a 12,000 foot peak safely. We succeeded because we tracked our progress closely and made timely decisions about when to correct our route. Given the logistical effort needed to prepare for the hike, we likely only had one chance to achieve our goal.

I always dread hearing a meeting facilitator say, “We’ve run out of time. I’ll schedule another meeting to cover the remaining topics.” In contrast to a major trek that requires planning, transportation, and decent weather, scheduling a follow-on meeting is relatively easy. But an org should inspect if this becomes a habit. It may indicate the need for clearer meeting agendas, more constraints, and stronger facilitation.