I think this is a limited model for understanding meetings. (Citing from the handbook of meeting science) there are different cognitive processes taking place during meetings (usually several in one meeting):
Problem identification and construction
Information exchange/information sharing
Idea generation and brainstorming
Idea evaluation and selection
Implementation planning
When I conduct meetings as a project manager (or participate in team meetings) I rarely have a clear “decision brief meeting” or a “planning and course of action development”. All of these may take place in one meeting depending on the scope of the decision(s) to be made. If a decision is consequential enough I can understand the need for fragmenting these processes into different meetings.
Additionally, other processes take place that are worth highlighting:
Trust and psychological safety
Support for innovation
Conflict
I think the main takeaway from your post would be for readers to highlight the purposes that the meetings they plan serve and approach meeting planning with more intention.
Thanks for this. This comes from a relatively top down (but locally administered) org structure which may not reflect exactly on other organizations.
We do have a structure that the commanders/decision makers may not always be present when we discuss things due to them needing to speak to higher echelons or other commitments and this may not reflect outside of a governmental structure.
I’m adding the handbook to my reading list, though and hope to update this when I do. (Rough that it costs so much though!)
Some pushback on this:
I think this is a limited model for understanding meetings. (Citing from the handbook of meeting science) there are different cognitive processes taking place during meetings (usually several in one meeting):
Problem identification and construction
Information exchange/information sharing
Idea generation and brainstorming
Idea evaluation and selection
Implementation planning
When I conduct meetings as a project manager (or participate in team meetings) I rarely have a clear “decision brief meeting” or a “planning and course of action development”. All of these may take place in one meeting depending on the scope of the decision(s) to be made. If a decision is consequential enough I can understand the need for fragmenting these processes into different meetings.
Additionally, other processes take place that are worth highlighting:
Trust and psychological safety
Support for innovation
Conflict
I think the main takeaway from your post would be for readers to highlight the purposes that the meetings they plan serve and approach meeting planning with more intention.
Thanks for this. This comes from a relatively top down (but locally administered) org structure which may not reflect exactly on other organizations.
We do have a structure that the commanders/decision makers may not always be present when we discuss things due to them needing to speak to higher echelons or other commitments and this may not reflect outside of a governmental structure.
I’m adding the handbook to my reading list, though and hope to update this when I do. (Rough that it costs so much though!)