In discussions at meetings, we make contributions. We can classify them according to their degrees of openness. For example, a relatively closed contribution is an announcement that our Monday meeting will be on Tuesday because elevator D in the Tower is off line for maintenance. This contribution is mostly factual, and although we might need to address its consequences, it's presented as if we do not. Closed contributions indicate no path forward to deliberations. They might even indicate, as above, that no further discussion is needed. A closed contribution by itself doesn't invite discussion.
By contrast, an open contribution suggests that something is unresolved. The group can then choose whether or when to discuss it. Open contributions transfer control of the discussion to the group.
Any contribution made at the right time, to the right group, with an appropriate degree of openness, can be valuable. Any contribution made at the wrong time or to the wrong group can create problems. Also troublesome are contributions that have inappropriate degrees of openness, independent of timing or choice of audience.
When we make open contributions about issues that don't need discussion, we risk wasting time. Because this problem is so obvious, I won't deal with it here. The more subtle problems arise when we make closed contributions about matters that do need discussion. Here are some tips for encouraging open contributions.
- Enrich existing threads
- One example of extending or re-opening an existing discussion thread is expanding on a point previously made. Enrich the thread by showing how it leads in intriguing directions, or pose a novel question about it, or ask for clarification.
- Support open contributions of others, or open them
- When someone else offers an open contribution, support it. Pursue any leads it suggests, or ask the contributor to "say more." Using these tactics for contributions that are inappropriately closed encourages their contributors to restate their contributions in more open forms.
- Propose open contribution generators
- An open Problems arise when we
make closed contributions
about matters that
do need discussioncontribution generator is a comment, question, or exercise that generates open contributions. For example, a contributor can ask, "If we had an answer to Question Q, what new solutions to Problem P would become available?" Or, "If we had a solution to Problem P, what would we have done to get it?"
- Propose generator generators
- A generator of open contribution generators is a contribution that suggests that the group focus on generating more open contributions. For example, for groups unaware of the distinction between open and closed contributions, a proposal to discuss that distinction could be a generator, while a proposal to survey types of contributions that generate open contributions could be a generator generator.
Finally, differences in personal preferences for cognitive closure can lead to differences in the degree of openness of contributions. What can you do to encourage openness of your own contributions? Or the contributions of others? Top Next Issue
Do you spend
your days scurrying from meeting to meeting? Do you ever wonder if all these meetings are really necessary? (They aren't) Or whether there isn't some better way to get this work done? (There is) Read 101 Tips for Effective Meetings to learn how to make meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot more rare. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenqyPXRYeSskTYpPEXner@ChacJjXzGSHmiqRCBqaroCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Effective Meetings:
- Take Any Seat: II
- In meetings, where you sit in the room influences your effectiveness, both in the formal part of the
meeting and in the milling-abouts that occur around breaks. You can take any seat, but if you make your
choice strategically, you can better maintain your autonomy and power.
- Using the Parking Lot
- In meetings, keeping a list we call the "parking lot" is a fairly standard practice. As the
discussion unfolds, we "park" there any items that arise that aren't on the agenda, but which
we believe could be important someday soon. Here are some tips for making your parking lot process more
- The Perils of Piecemeal Analysis: Content
- A team member proposes a solution to the latest show-stopping near-disaster. After extended discussion,
the team decides whether or not to pursue the idea. It's a costly approach, because too often it leads
us to reject unnecessarily some perfectly sound proposals, and to accept others we shouldn't have.
- Discussion Distractions: I
- Meetings could be far more productive, if only we could learn to recognize and prevent the distractions
that lead us off topic and into the woods. Here is Part I of a small catalog of distractions frequently
seen in meetings.
- When the Chair Is a Bully: III
- When the Chair of the meeting is so dominant that attendees withhold comments or slant contributions
to please the Chair, meeting output is at risk of corruption. Because Chairs usually can retaliate against
attendees who aren't "cooperative," this problem is difficult to address. Here's Part III
of our exploration of the problem of bully chairs.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming March 28: Four Overlooked Email Risks: II
- Email exchanges are notorious for exposing groups to battles that would never occur in face-to-face conversation. But email has other limitations, less-often discussed, that make managing dialog very difficult. Here's Part II of an exploration of some of those risks. Available here and by RSS on March 28.
- And on April 4: Narcissistic Behavior at Work: III
- People who behave narcissistically tend to regard themselves as special. They systematically place their own interests and welfare ahead of anyone or anything else. In this part of the series we consider how this claimed specialness affects the organization and its people. Available here and by RSS on April 4.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenGtUOVJJqfJSeedLBner@ChacePbLoDENXeiYLzesoCanyon.com or (617) 491-6289, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.