By Lucien Okill, ENS Strategist
How can a common language aid an organisation’s productivity?
When did you last sit down to analyse the effectiveness of your team’s discussions?
Let’s turn our gaze towards an unsuspecting culprit: meetings.
In this article, I delve into meeting dynamics where hidden needs, unresolved issues, and the inefficacy in addressing the core objectives not only stall progress but also contribute to a significant, yet often overlooked, reduction in productivity.
Across the United States of America, 55 million meetings take place every day*. This figure highlights the integral role that meeting with others play in the day-to-day operations of businesses. However, it also prompts a critical examination of their effectiveness and the impact they have on productivity and organisational efficiency.
I curiously looked into this statistic after I witnessed a particular meeting last week where I played the role of an impartial observer. In that room, there were four participants, each deeply invested in the outcome, struggling to find common ground.
Their own interests seemed to cloud the possibility of achieving an unbiased perspective. I was there to provide an objective and neutral point of view that seemed to be out of reach.
This experience sparked a deeper reflection and got me thinking about productivity and the cost to businesses.
What was the cost to this business in having four highly skilled individuals tied up for an extended period in a verbal judo match, when ultimately, as a team, they all needed to get to a positive outcome?
The content of the meeting is of little importance here. What I was fascinated with was the fact the four attendees were making a vast range of suggestions and statements that often took them away from the broader organisational goal, despite their shared objective of needing to reach a beneficial resolution for their company.
The inefficiency of their interaction raised critical questions about the true expense of such meetings on organisational effectiveness and the optimal utilisation of talent.
What do you think was going on?
From where I was sitting it appeared to be a combination of ego, grandstanding, asserting a senior position and the desire to ultimately, as an individual, come out of the meeting feeling like they got the win.
The points mentioned above could be described as what we call at ENS the “hidden needs” of the participants.
Hidden needs are something that live within all of us and are driven by our desire to match what happens with what we want to happen – this can sometimes come at the expense of a better outcome for the organisation.
As much as we have our own hidden needs, so do other parties. These can cause disputes, ongoing disagreements, and delays.
The question is, when we call for a meeting or attend one, how often do we think about the “hidden needs” of the other party? And then, how often do we think about the time and productivity that could very well be lost to those ” hidden needs”?
Let’s revisit the above meeting and assume that each party had at least one “hidden need” that was driving their contribution to the conversation. Lets assume it takes 30 minutes to get to the core of that need and then we replicate it for the other 3 participants. We are allocating a potential two hours of time to address the “hidden needs” of the participants prior to getting to the desired outcome.
You might very well say to me “But this is part of the process!”, and you would be right. However, I would reply with, “is there a better way we can address the ‘hidden needs’ in advance and use the formal meeting time to get to a speedier outcome? So we can return back a potential two hours of productive time across all participants to the organisation”?
By conducting an organisational review of meetings, including their frequency, duration, and the quality of their outcomes relative to the time invested, we stand to unlock a significant opportunity.
The key to unlocking this potential lies in establishing a “common language” within an organisation.
This approach goes beyond communication, it addresses the “hidden needs” of meeting participants (ego, fear, risk aversion, doubt, status, emotions) as a foundational element of the preparation process.
Such a common language cultivates an environment of mutual understanding and respect, encouraging the open acknowledgment and management of individual concerns and motivations.
Embedding this shared common language into an organisational culture fosters more effective collaboration, aligning team members and equipping them to actively contribute to discussions.
This not only leads to better meeting outcomes but also ensures a more efficient use of time, thereby enhancing overall organisational efficiency and returning back to team members valuable productive hours.
How can we achieve this?
At ENS we are believers in the benefits of our negotiating and influencing framework and its proven ability to create a “common language” in an organisation, allowing for ego, fear and the “hidden needs” of meeting participants to be managed as part of the ongoing process leading up to meetings.
To discuss the above further or any other matter that relates to the ideas of strategic negotiation and influencing feel free to reach out to me or the team at ENS.
We would love to come and have a PRODUCTIVE meeting with you.
