Have a look at this entertaining infographic and see if you can identify your meeting manners:

1. Bill the Deflector: keeps out of the conversation by deflecting all questions to other workers

2. Linda the Jargonmeister: Uses colorful buzzwords and “business speak” to navigate the questions to which she doesn’t have any real answers

3. Paula the Artful Dodger: Escapes answering as many inquiries and requests as possible

4. Martin the Boomerang: Throws everyone off guard by answering questions with questions

5. Conrad the Oldtimer: Knows the ins and outs of the game and only speaks up when a voice of reason is needed so that he can get out of the room as fast as possible

6. Agnes the Realist: With the possibility of promotion dangling in front of her like a carrot, she is determined to get everything done, no matter how long it takes – much to the chagrin of everyone else present.

7. Jerry the Big-Leaguer: Schedules meetings when he knows he can’t attend. It’s a powerplay of sorts that he thinks makes himself seem important.

8. Susan the Pacifist: Does everything in her power to keep everyone as happy as possible; conflict only makes the meeting drag on.

Disclaimer: The fact that I’m posting this a couple of days after our last Faculty & Staff meetings is entirely coincidental. Honestly! And the fact that some familiar names might be on this list do not in any way reflect the characteristics of any PRTS staff (Honestly, Bill and Jerry!!).

While on the subject, have a look at “The Modern Meetings Revolution.” 

  • Dave Sarafolean

    Seems like a lot of this stuff would be solved if meetings were run via Roberts Rules of Order. A meeting is called to resolve a matter or move a decision that needs to be made. A motion is put forward; it is either seconded or dies for lack of a second. If seconded, then debate ensues with a vote being taken. I realize that this only works in a situation where those who participate can vote (i.e. are equals). I would not work in a corporate setting where a department head asks those under him/her for input. Those situations parallel the congregational church setting where everyone gets to vote on every matter.