Analyzing meetings
2006-03-14 23:04 GMT
It has been relatively long time, before my current position,
when I had to ran in meetings drinking tea and discussing about
common interests. Now when I am starting to get used to again,
my interest in that sort of social interaction is getting
aroused once again.
There are several kinds of meetings.
1. Positive. These are usually meetings where other participant
needs what other one has to offer. Instead of just sipping
coffee or tea, real issues get discussed, maybe even solved,
while everybody involved feels doing something useful with
their time. These are good for business.
2. Since there can't be negative social interaction, lets call
the second type of meetings "avoidings". Real issues lie
underneath and nothing gets solved. Cultural or economical
factors separate negotiators so far, that things get only worse
by continuing interacting in this kind of situation. After
these "avoidings" blaming starts and instead of trying to find
any constructive solutions, at least one participant needs to
point out a scapegoat.
3. Confusing. These are the meetings where you go intending to
establish some issue, but walk out with something else or
nothing at all. Typical is the vast amount of talk involved and
common feeling that at the other side of the table someone
doesn't understand what you arfe saying. But it is okay, cos
you don't have a damn clue what the other side is trying to
achieve. These take time and aren't good for anyones business.
It feels good to write these things open. Probably people blog
so much nowadays to get their own thoughts clear. I should do
this more often as well.
Joe