Meetings: The Medium of Managerial Work

By Andy Grove

The big part of a middle manager’s work is to supply information and know-how, and to impart a sense of the preferred method of handling things to the groups under his control and influence. A manager also makes and helps to make decisions. Both kinds of basic managerial tasks can only occur during face-to-face encounters, and therefore only during meetings.

A meeting is nothing less than the medium through which managerial work is performed. That means we should not be fighting their very existence, but rather using the time spent in them as efficiently as possible.

Two basic managerial roles produce two basic kinds of meetings. In the first kind of meeting, called process-oriented meeting, knowledge is shared and information is exchanged. Such thing takes place on a regular basis. The purpose of the second kind of meeting is to solve a specific problem, called mission-oriented meeting, frequently produce a decision. They are ad hoc affairs, not scheduled long in advance, because they usually can’t be.

Process-Oriented Meetings
Process-oriented meeting is a regularly scheduled affair and held to exchange knowledge and information. At Intel we use three kinds of process-oriented meetings: the one-on-one, the staff meeting, and the operational review.

One-on-Ones
One-on-one meeting between a supervisor and a subordinate is the principle way their business relationship is maintained. Its main purpose is mutual teaching and exchange of information. By talking about specific problems and situations, the supervisor teaches the subordinate his skills and know-how, and suggests ways to approach things. At the same time, the subordinate provides the supervisor with detailed information about what he is doing and what he is concerned about.

Even though I was expected to supervise both engineering and manufacturing, I knew very little about the company’s first product line, memory devices. I also didn’t know much about manufacturing techniques, my background having been entirely in semiconductor device research. So two of my associates, both of whom reported to me, agreed to give me a private lessons on memory design and manufacturing. During the session the pupil/supervisor busily took notes trying to learn. As Intel grew; the initial tone and spirit of such one-on-ones endured and grew.

How do you decide how often somebody needs such a meeting? The answer is the task relevant maturity of each of your subordinates. Accordingly you should have one-on-ones frequently (e.g., once a week) with a subordinate who is inexperienced in a specific situation and less frequently (perhaps once every few weeks) with an experienced veteran.

How long should one-on-one meeting last? There is no answer to this, but the subordinate must feel that there is enough time to broach and get into thorny issues. I feel that a one-on-one meeting should last an hour at a minimum. Anything less, in my experience, tends to make the subordinate confine himself to simple things that can be handled quickly.

Where should one-on-one take place? A supervisor can learn a lot simply by going to his subordinate’s office:
Is he organized or not?
Does he repeatedly have to spend time looking for a document he wants?
Does he get interrupted all the time?
And in general, how does the subordinate approach his work?

A key point about a one-on-one meeting: It should be regarded as the subordinate’s meeting, with its agenda and tone set by him. The subordinate should be asked to prepare an outline, which is very important because it forces him to think through in advance all of the issues and points he plans to raise. An outline also provides a framework for supporting information. The subordinate should then walk the supervisor through all the material. The supervisor must have the outline before the meeting begins, both parties should take notes, and so on.

What should be covered in a one-on-one? We can start with performance figures, indicators used by the subordinate. Emphasis should be on indicators that signal trouble. The meeting should also cover anything important that has happened since the last meeting: current hiring problems, people problems in general, or organizational problems and future plans, and – very, very important – potential problems.

Even when a problem isn’t tangible, even if it’s only an intuition that something’s wrong, a subordinate owes it to his supervisor to tell him, because it triggers a look into the organizational black box.

The most important criterion governing matters to be talked about is that they be issues that preoccupy and nag the subordinate. They are often obscure and take time to surface, consider, and resolve.

What is the role of supervisor in a one-on-one? He should facilitate the subordinate’s expression of what’s going on and what’s bothering him. The supervisor is there to learn and to coach.
Peter Drucker sums up the supervisor job very nicely:
“The good time users among managers do not talk to their subordinates about their problems but they know how to make the subordinates talk about theirs.”

Principle of didactic management, “Ask one more question!” When the supervisor thinks the subordinate has said all he wants to about a subject, he should ask another question. He should try to keep the flow of thoughts coming by prompting the subordinate with queries until both feel satisfied that they have gotten to the bottom of a problem.

Both the supervisor and subordinate should have a copy of the outline and both should take notes on it, which serves a number of purposes.

I take note in just about all circumstances, and most often end up never looking at them again. I do it to keep my mind from drifting and also to help me digest the information I hear and see. Since I take notes in outline form, I am forced to categorize the information logically, which help me to absorb it. Equally important is what is writing down symbolizes.

Many issues in a one-on-one lead to action required on the part of the subordinate. When he takes a note immediately following the supervisor’s suggestion, the act implies a commitment, like a handshake, that something will be done. The supervisor, also having taken notes, can then follow up at the next one-on-one.

The supervisor should also encourage the discussion of heart-to-heart issues during one-on-ones, because this is the perfect forum for getting a subtle and deep work-related problems affecting his subordinate.
Is he satisfied with his own performance?
Does some frustration or obstacle gnaw at him?
Does he have doubts about where he is going?
The supervisor should be wary of the “zinger,” which is a heart-to-heart issue brought up at an awkward time. More often than not, these come near the end of a meeting. If you let that happen, the subordinate might tell you something like he’s unhappy and has been looking outside for a job and give you only five minutes to deal with it.

For long distance one-on-one, exchanging notes after the meeting is a way to make sure each knows that the other committed himself to be.

One-on-one should be scheduled on a rolling basis –setting up the next one as the meeting taking place ends.

What is leverage of the one-on-one? Let’s say a one-on-one meeting lasts one to one and a half hours and happens every two weeks. Ninety minutes of supervisor’s time can enhance the quality of his subordinate’s work for two weeks, or for some eighty-plus hours and also upgrade supervisor’s understanding of what his subordinate’s doing, checking closely enough to make sure an activity is proceeding in line with expectations. Clearly, one-on-one can exert enormous leverage. At the same time, the subordinate teaches the supervisor, and what is learned is absolutely essential if the supervisor is to make a good decision. And, this, as noted, is the only way in which efficient and effective delegation can take place.

During a recent one-on-one meeting, my subordinate, who is responsible for Intel’s sales organization, reviewed trend indicators of incoming orders. While I was vaguely familiar with them, he laid out a lot of specific information and convinced me that our business had stopped growing. He proved to me that what was going was not just seasonal. We came to the reluctant conclusion that business was in fact slowing down. This meant we should take a conservative approach to near-term investment. By sharing his base of information with me, the two of us developed a congruent attitude, approach, and conclusion: conservatism in our expansion plans. He left the meeting having decided to scale back growth in his own area of responsibility. I left having decided to share what we had concluded with the business groups I supervised. Thus, this one-on-ones produced substantial leverage: the Intel sales manager affected all the other managers who reported to me.


Staff Meeting
Staff meeting presents an opportunity for interaction among peers and also creates an opportunity for the supervisor to learn from the exchange and confrontation that often develops. In my own case, I get a much better understanding of an issue with which I am not familiar by listening to two people with opposing views discuss it than I do by listening to one side only.
What should be discussed at the stuff meeting?
Anything that affects more than two of the people present. If the meeting generates into a conversation between two people working on a problem affecting only them, the supervisor should break it off and move on to something else that will include more of the staff, while suggesting that the two continue their exchange later.

How structured should the meeting be? A free-for-all brainstorming session or controlled with a detailed agenda?
It should be mostly controlled, with an agenda issued far enough in advance that the subordinates will have had the chance to prepare their thoughts for the meeting. But it should also include an “open session” – a designated period of time for the staff to bring up anything they want.

What is the rule of the supervisor in the stuff meeting – a leader, observer, expediter, questioner, and decision maker? The answer, of course, is all of them.

A supervisor should never use staff meetings to pontificate, which is the surest way to undermine free discussion and hence the meeting’s basic purpose. Supervisor’s most important roles are being a meeting’s moderator and facilitator, and controller of its pace and thrust.

Stuff meetings are an ideal medium for decision-making, because the group of managers present has typically worked together for a long time. A stuff meeting is like the dinner-table conversation of a family.


Operation Reviews
The format here should include formal presentations in which managers describe their work to other managers who are not their immediate supervisors, and to peers in other parts of the company.

The basic purpose of an operation review at Intel is to keep the teaching and learning going on between employees several organizational levels apart – people who don’t have one-on-ones or staff meetings with each other. This is important for both the junior and senior manager. The junior person will benefit from the comments, criticisms, and suggestions of the senior manager, who in turn will get a different feel for problems from people familiar with their details.

Such meetings are also a source of motivation: managers making the presentations will want to leave a good impression on their supervisor’s supervisor and on their outside peers.

Who are the players at an operation review?

The organizing manager
He should help the presenters decide what issues should be talked about and what should not. What should be emphasized, and what level of detail to go into.
The presenter manager should also be in charge of housekeeping (the meeting room, visual materials, invitations, and so on). Finally, he should be the timekeeper, scheduling the presentations and keeping them moving along.

The reviewing manager
The reviewing manager is the senior supervisor at whom the review is aimed – like the general manager of an Intel division. He has a very important although more subtle role to play: he should ask questions, make comments, and in general impart the appropriate spirit to the meeting. He is the catalyst needed to provoke audience participation, and by his example he should encourage free expression. He should never preview the material, since that will keep him from reacting spontaneously. Because the senior manager should be a role model for the junior managers present, he should take his role at the review extremely seriously.

The presenters
The people presenting the review – a group of marketing supervisors – for example should use visual aids such as overhead transparencies to the extend possible. People are endowed with eyes as well as ears, and the simultaneous use of both definitely helps the audience understand the points being made. But care must be taken, because all too frequently a presenter gets so obsessed with getting through all of his visual material that his massage gets lost even while all his carts get flipped.

As a role of thumb, I would recommended four minutes of presentation and discussion time upper visual aid, which can include tables, numbers, or graphics. The presenter must highlight whatever he wants to emphasize with a color pen or pointer.

Throughout the presentation, the presenter has to watch his audience like a hawk. Facial expressions and body language, among other things, will tell him if people are getting the message, if he needs to stop and go over something again, or if he is boring them and should speed up.

The audience.
The audience at an operation review also as a crucial part to play. One of the distinguishing marks of a good meeting is that the audience participates by asking questions and making comments. If you avoid the presenter’s eyes, yawn, or read the newspaper it’s worst than not being there at all. Lack of interest undermines the confidence of the presenter.

Make that time as valuable as possible for yourself and your organization. Ask question if something is not clear to you and speak up if you can’t go along with an approach being recommended. And if the presenter makes a factual error, it is your responsibility to go on record.


Mission-Oriented Meeting
Mission-oriented meeting is usually held ad hoc and is designed to produce a specific output, frequently a decision.

The key of success here is what the chairman does. It is usually the chairman or de facto chairman who calls the meeting who has more at stake in the outcome of the meeting than the others. Most of what he contributes should occur before it begins.

The chairman must have a clear understanding of the meeting’s objective – what needs to happen and what decision has to be made.

The absolute truth is that if you don’t know what you want, you won’t get it.
So before calling a meeting, ask yourself: What am I trying to accomplish?
Then ask, is a meeting necessary? Or desirable? Or justifiable?
Don’t call a meeting if all the answer aren’t yes.

Even if you are just an invited participant, you should ask yourself if the meeting – and your attendance – is desirable and justified. Determine the purpose of the meeting before committing your time and your company’s resources.

Get it called off early, at a low-value-added stage, if a meeting makes no sense. And find a less costly way (a one-on-one meeting, a telephone call, a note) to pursue the matter.

As chairman, you must identify who should attend and then try to get those people to come. It is not enough to ask people and hope for the best; you need to follow up and get commitments. If someone invited can’t make it himself, see to it that he sends a person with the power to speak for him.

Keep in mind that a meeting called to make a specific decision is hard to keep moving if more than six or seven people attend. Eight people should be the absolute cutoff. Decision making is not a spectacular sport.

The chairman is also responsible for maintaining discipline. It is criminal for him to allow people to be late and waste everyone’s time. Don’t worry about confronting the late arriver. He should also send out the agenda that clearly states the purpose of the meeting, as well as what role everybody there is expected to play to get the desired output.

Once the meeting is over, the chairman must nail down exactly what happened by sending out minutes that summarize the discussion that occurred, the decision made, and the actions be taken. And it’s very important that attendees get the minutes quickly, before they forget what happened . The minutes should also be as clear and as specific as possible, telling the reader what is to be done, who is to do it, and when.

All this may seem like too much trouble, but if the meeting was worth calling in the first place, the work needed to produce the minutes is a small additional investment (an activity with high leverage) to ensure that the full benefit is obtained from what was done.

Ideally, a manager should never have to call an ad hoc, mission-oriented meeting, because if all runs smoothly, everything is taken care of in regularly scheduled, process-oriented meetings.

In practice, however, if all goes well, routine meetings will take care of maybe 80 percent of the problems and issues; the remaining 20 percent will still have to be dealt with in mission-oriented meetings. The sign of malorganization is when people spend more than 25 percent of their time in ad hoc mission-oriented meetings.