To add to the feedback process, we provided individual "scorecards" so that meeting participants could record thoughts and observations. They could write down any additional questions, comments, points of confusion and interdependencies they noted. Finally each topic was scored on a scale of one to 10 for their buy in. After the meeting, the scorecards were sorted and distributed to each topic leader for their editing process.

And more importantly, we listened to each other. Really listened. No zoning out. No glazed eyeballs. No Blackberry prayer.

How do we measure if meetings are successful? Changed behavior? Nods all around? Who knows? We conducted anonymous meeting evaluations and the results were extremely positive. The meeting ran 10.5 hours including our lunch break. While breaking up at 6:00 (only to head to a planned team dinner!), the room was electric. People were energized, excited, and inspired by the day. They had made connections - both with the material and the people who served it up.

Looking back, I feel confident that if we had gone the most traveled road – using presentations, reading the bullet points and asking the glazed-over participants for input – we would never have had the personal investments and creativity brought forth. There would have been little-to-no preparation for the meeting – presenters reading slides and trying to remember why they constructed them that way. The interactions would have been more forced and probably more about wordsmithing the slide than understanding or appreciating the point.

Lesson learned was that for meetings where you expect and must encourage a high degree of interactive sharing, leave the safe, predictable world of slide presentation and the accompanying technology, and turn on the creative process.

Death to Powerpoint®? No. Just give it an occasional vacation.

Page 3 of 3 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 3 | Next