Standards to Get People to Participate More in Meetings
The "magic pill" to make meetings not suck is simple human engagement.
In my last article, I wrote about process standards we have at The Junto Institute to make our meetings as effective and productive as possible.
Process, however, only goes so far...even if it's great, meetings can still suck.
I believe the "magic pill" that makes meetings not suck - but instead more enjoyable and something to even look forward to - is how engaging they are. And engagement is driven by one factor: participation.
I believe that every meeting can be engaging simply because there are people there. I believe that many people don't engage because they don't know how, there are politics or social pressures involved, they wonder why they were invited, and so on. I believe the responsibility for addressing all of this lies with the people organizing the meeting.
And I believe the simplest way to fulfill that responsibility is by setting standards.
OUR PARTICIPATION STANDARDS
We host a wide range of meetings at The Junto Institute and, therefore, have a wide range of standards for them. What follows is a selection of the most important ones that drive participation and which, unsurprisingly, are those we use for a majority of our meetings.
STANDARD 1: Everyone speaks once before anyone speaks twice
This is the standard that, over the years, has received the most positive feedback at Junto, has never received any pushback, and which I believe is an absolute difference-maker.
In following this standard, we give each person in the room equal opportunity to be heard, regardless of seniority, age, experience, title, etc. This invites more quiet, reserved, or shy people to share their thoughts but doesn’t require them to do so; they are welcome to pass. It also keeps any one or more people from dominating a conversation (especially executives, leaders, and big personalities) which can affect the morale of a group and/or the quality of the discussion.
This standard is followed more in spirit than literally since we also want conversations to flow organically and not mechanically. However, anytime we notice someone speaking frequently, we ask them to wait to contribute again until we've checked with the others. And when we do that, most of the time there is indeed someone who has something to share.
Few people want to be in meetings that are dominated by one or two voices, and most people believe that if they were important enough to be invited to a meeting, they are also important enough to be heard. This standard helps deliver on that.
STANDARD 2: “I” statements vs. “You” statements
When we share experiences, opinions, or beliefs using "I" statements, we reduce the likelihood of others being offended or uncomfortable because we’re speaking for ourselves. On the other hand, when we share advice, judgments, or instructions with "you" statements, they can put others on the defensive and/or make them feel uncomfortable.
Furthermore, using "I" statements keeps the attention focused on the person speaking while using "you" statements quite often changes where the attention goes. It can shift to that other person or even shift to ourselves (in our mind) when we begin wondering if we'll be the subject of the next "you" statement. When this happens, many of us shut down because of the anxiety, and become less willing to participate.
I've personally seen the change in body language for some people when they hear "I" statements vs. "you" statements in a meeting: they lean in, seem more relaxed, make better eye contact, nod and smile more often, and simply participate more.
STANDARD 3: Shared experiences instead of advice
Shared experiences reflect our own truth and empower the other person to decide what to do. When we give advice, we assume that we know the entire context of the other person’s situation, which is rarely true. Advice can also come across as condescending, doesn’t stimulate critical thinking for the other person, and assumes there’s a “right” way of doing something.
Using shared experiences is very simple way to live the "I" statements vs. "you" statements standard. It's also another version of using storytelling in meetings, which science has proven to be more effective for engagement, learning, and recall.
STANDARD 4: Eye contact, even online
There is no other way to send the message that we’re listening besides making eye contact. And when we know that others are listening, we become more likely to participate. Even at remote meetings, we ask people to show empathy for others by making eye contact as much as possible which requires video being on.
I've been in Zoom sessions at which someone who has two monitors actually adjusts their camera or screens once they notice everyone else is making eye contact. The beauty of standardized behaviors, based on my experience, is that people tend to follow them based on observation and social norms rather than command.
On a side note, this standard becomes much easier to follow when the others are followed.
STANDARD 5: Clarifying questions instead of probing questions
Clarifying questions help shed light on something the speaker already said. Examples include, “Can you clarify what you meant by ___?” or “You mentioned ___, can you tell me more?” or “What did you mean when you said ___?”
On the other hand, probing questions change the subject and/or reflect our own interests rather than the speaker’s. There aren’t any typical probing questions so hopefully this example helps:
If we hear someone say they’re afraid they might get fired for making a mistake, a clarifying question might be, “Can you clarify why you’re afraid?” or “What mistake did you make?” On the other hand, a probing question might be, “Have you been fired before?” or “Did someone say you’d get fired?”
STANDARD 6: Using people's names
For our pre-pandemic, in-person sessions that had a different mix of people each time, we printed name tents for the scheduled attendees. If someone came who we weren't expecting, our team would quickly race to the office and print one up. We did this for two reasons:
To demonstrate that each person at that meeting was seen, recognized, and acknowledged as a human being. When that happens, it's more likely they'll participate.
To encourage each person to use others' names so they could be further seen, recognized, and acknowledged.
Today, since we're fully remote, we obviously get to save the time and paper of doing name tents. But their names are still part of our meeting standards:
when people join a session, we greet them personally
each time they raise their hand physically or virtually, we call on them by name
when we "go around the room" for introductions or a poll, we often use the game of "tag" or “popcorn” where each person calls on someone new...by name
STANDARD 7: Action items
For those meetings where specific actions are discussed, we don't rely on the meeting host or facilitator to summarize them. Instead, we ask attendees individually what action items they declare for themselves or would like to propose for someone else (note: we intentionally carve out time for this).
In addition to verbally engaging people, I've observed that this standard also mentally engages them. It forces a moment of self-reflection, curiosity, and even ownership in some cases. And considering that this is done near the end of a meeting, when many people may be looking to reduce their participation, it's even more powerful.
STANDARD 8: Closing appreciations
At the conclusion of every Junto meeting, we set aside time for a round of closing appreciations. Each person is given an opportunity to share one thing they appreciate about anything.
In most cases, it's about the meeting itself: a one-liner they loved, a key lesson learned, someone whose contribution they enjoyed, even how effective or productive the meeting was. In some cases, it's about something entirely different: the weather, their loved ones, etc.
The purpose is to create one last opportunity for each person to participate. And while the standard helps people reflect on what they appreciated, and learn what others may have, it has another powerful purpose that creates a beautiful residual effect.
If a meeting has been fairly "positive" in nature, closing appreciations helps bring that to light for everyone. If a meeting was difficult, conflict-ridden, or otherwise "negative," closing appreciations helps bring it to a more neutral place. And from my experience, they can even sometimes turn the sentiment around entirely.
STANDARDS LEAD TO NORMS
There was a time in our history at The Junto Institute when we continued to remind our members and mentors of these participation standards. Today, we rarely do.
That's because, by consistently following the standards over the years, our members and mentors have helped them become behavioral and social norms. And while we still must familiarize new people with the standards, they learn them faster by seeing everyone else follow them.
The outcome of this is that virtually every one of our meetings is not just productive and effective but also engaging. As I mentioned in part one, we occasionally hear that people look forward to our meetings. And we have never had a meeting that went off the rails.
OUR DIRTY LITTLE (OPEN) SECRET
The main reason that hasn't happened is because all of these standards are rooted in emotional intelligence. They're built on self-awareness, self-control, empathy, initiative, compassion, listening, and other virtuous behaviors that, when absent, result in meetings that suck.
I believe it's that simple: meetings that suck result from a lack of emotionally intelligent behaviors. And, in my experience, the best way to encourage those behaviors is by setting standards rooted in emotional intelligence (much more to come on this topic in future articles).
THE REAL DIRTY LITTLE SECRET
I'll close with the actual "magic pill" when it comes to using standards for effective and productive meetings: those of us who are the hosts, organizers, facilitators, and speakers must lead by example.
At Junto, every person on our team feels the burden in every meeting to make sure we follow every one of our standards. Sure, we miss one here or there because we're human. But we are the engine at the front of the proverbial train. It's only going to move in the direction we want - effective and productive - if we move in that direction ourselves.