Where's the relevant information?

I have been in the worst of meetings. Actually, if I’m honest, I’ve run some! That feels good to say, and a nice place to start I think, with a little humility and compassion for my own human fallibility. Allow me to describe the kind of meeting I’m talking about. I’m quietly confident you’ll be familiar with some or all of it. Then I’ll offer up an alternative reality, and you can decide which one you’d prefer to attend or run yourself. In the process I hope you’ll see that there is so much more to information than simply a dissemination of supporting facts.

I received the invite the morning of the proposed meeting. My sense was that only a cursory amount of thought had been given to who should attend, usually from the perspective of who they need there to support their view and who they feel compelled to invite, rather than who might actually help to develop a new perspective. The invite has no information attached, and a poorly bulleted list of statements that are hard to stitch together, forming the vague facade of an agenda. The meeting begins late with a few apologetic stragglers. The powerpoint comes on and the presenter has a point to prove. Some eyes glance around the room, nervous in anticipation of what is about to be pitched. Is it going to upset or aggravate me? Will I be called upon to comment? If I am, will I be able to offer anything concrete, or will I be made to look a fool! Other eyes are glued to their mobile screens, but hey, at least they’re physically there! Goal in mind, the presenter offers the necessary data to support their position - not that anyone would have much chance to query whether it does. This is the first time anyone else has seen the data, and the meeting rushes on, one-way dissemination masquerading as discussion. Finally someone pipes up, only to be shut down with a back-handed compliment and just a hint of sarcasm. They are denied their view at this showing, but in truth, the presenter is in denial too, drinking their own kool aid with a compulsion to deliver results whatever the reality. The meeting ends with a few people scratching their heads; those that could be bothered to engage. Was there a conclusion, a decision, or clear next actions? If there were, few if any in the room are clear on what they are. The only thing they are clear on is that they had no impact whatsoever on the outcome. Disempowered, disengaged and disgruntled, they head out to grab a coffee.

I’ve hammed it up a little, but I doubt that many can tell me they’ve not experienced a meeting like this at some point in their life. I equally doubt if any could say that they’ve not experienced at least one or more elements in any one of the recent meetings they’ve attended.

Information, or lack of it, is woven throughout almost all of what I describe above. Had the presenter chosen to share a little relevant data or information for consumption prior to meeting, this would of course have been good, but in truth only a fraction of the information available. To explain what I mean, let’s take a look at the Time to Think guidance on this component.

Information: Supplying facts, recognising social context and dismantling denial.

Behind this component is a central tenet of Team Coaching; everything that is going on is information, and in order to see it, we need to remain curious. In a world where speed is of the essence and bias inevitable, we’re impatient and unkind to the process of properly absorbing data. It’s one thing to supply the information, but another entirely to have everyone absorb it, and I mean all of it. Yes, there is the factual information, but there is also information on how people respond to the facts and how they all uniquely interpret them and consequently, how that changes the dynamic of the group and the way in which they respond to one another.

The importance of supplying the relevant facts to create the ultimate thinking environment is no great surprise. However, it’s the manner in which the facts are supplied, and what constitutes fact that makes this component so immensely interesting. To that end, I find it easier to talk about data in both cases, and how our best thinking happens when we begin to unite behind the facts within the data. Taking the above example, who has attended, and how they attend, is also data. How the presenter presents, and what they choose to present is data too. Likewise for who does not attend, and what is not presented. What they appear to believe, and consequently, what they don’t believe unveils more data, offering an insight into how each team member is thinking and how we might in turn think with them. Recognising what is not being said, or what is being denied is, yep, you guessed it - more data.

Harold Bridger’s Double Task model recognises that teams always have two tasks to be managed at the same time; the work to be done, and the maintenance and reflection of the group itself. I take the latter to be akin to Time to Think’s ‘social context’; and ultimately an even richer bed of information. However, both are marred by individual agendas and biases. Taking time to consider each ensures both the longevity of the team and ultimately better decisions and better results. We’re usually very aware of the ‘work to be done’. Indeed, for many companies, the work to be done becomes all that there is; all-consuming, with burnout swiftly following for the key parties who give it their all. It’s painful to witness the ones that give their best, yet end up receiving the worst, but such is one possible outcome of teams who ignore the information from the human side of this model.

teams always have two tasks to be managed at the same time; the work to be done, and the maintenance and reflection of the group itself

What we deny is also information about ourselves and only through reflection can we dismantle that denial, looking at both the good and the bad with equal attention and respect. As human beings, we all find safety and comfort in seeing the world as we believe it to be, so we all make up stories (our scripts) to shore up our beliefs about the world. In doing so, we often deny the best parts of ourselves. Still, that doesn’t mean that denial is inaccessible. With a little bravery, and with team members offering the necessary psychological safety, we can shine a light on denial, our own and others. Nancy Kline’s favoured question for uncovering such denial is simple:

What are you not facing that is right in front of your face?

It doesn’t hold any punches, and with egos and fragilities, it can sometimes fall flat on its face! But for a team that puts time into reflecting on their own dynamics, this question can overturn denial, removing stubborn barriers to progress and returning a team to thinking at their best. It takes courage to ask the question, but it also takes care.

So, how might that meeting look, if all the relevant facts were supplied and absorbed, the social context of the team truly considered and given room to breathe, and enough psychological safety such that the group feels comfortable to ask what is not being seen, and what is not being said. Perhaps something like this.

The invite is sent a couple of weeks in advance with an agenda presented as a series of considered questions that seek to ignite independent thinking from the start. Some data is offered in the invite, but the team is asked to 'pre-pair to prepare' and develop the agenda; is this all the information we need to answer these questions? Are these even the right questions? Are the right people attending to offer a suitably rounded perspective? The thoughts of the pairs are fed back to the presenter who updates the invite. New, more relevant information is offered and the questions are revised. The team is kindly asked to review and consider this new information ahead of the meeting. The meeting starts with a check-in; where are people at? What’s going on in their world that might shape the thinking they do in this space? There is no powerpoint and phones and laptops are kindly asked to be left at the door. Print outs offer the information that was shared, with space for individuals to capture their own thoughts, though few do as they engage with the discussion wholeheartedly. The presenter mostly listens, and in so doing, the questions being asked start to shift as the team share their thoughts. The reality of denial in mind, the presenter asks, “What am I not seeing that is staring me in the face?” Another round of thinking runs through as the team attempts to look at the question from new and exciting angles. Answers to the questions begin to collate on post-its strewn across flipcharts that capture the refined questions and their answers. The meeting ends with the team on a high. Each question has an owner. A list of new information that might enhance the work is captured and shared. A round of next actions is run, and captured in the words of those doing the work. Excited, empowered and engaged, they head out to grab coffee and doughnuts - there’s work to be done!

I suppose it’s not really a choice at all. Who would actively want to be in the first meeting? It may be over and done with faster, but it’ll come around again, and again, as they continue to flounder, or worse, make poor decisions that no one is truly bought into. It’s what happens when teams fail to recognise what truly constitutes information, choose not to take the time to absorb that information, and don’t feel safe enough to ask, ‘What am I not seeing here?’ Absorbing all the relevant facts may take time, but it always leads to the best decisions, and consequently, the best outcomes.

Need help to unveil and absorb allthe relevant info? Book a free 30-minute session today