Yesterday, I sat in an interesting meeting that slowly fell to pieces: a continuation of the Analytics presentation. In fact, most Cvent meetings I attend fall apart in the same fashion.
Meg was leading her team's analytics breakdown of Q3 web and business performances in North America. The team is good and their information is good. It falls apart in the delivery.
Example: Jared produces data on a specific page or feature, like a navigation pane. People don't attack the data or science, which is good. They do question the decisions that created the product (like a website), which the data is highlighting.
There are problems that come from the actions:
Jared or Judd will make recommendations of what the content or features should do or say. And I think they should be making suggestions or considerations. Because the recommendations are taken as a Next Action, which causes fear in the room.
The better questions, I think, are How did we get here and What should the future state be? Because often, there was no strategy or consideration going into the earlier decision. This slide could be educational and frame the discussion (not argument) over how to do this better now and in the future.
Jared and Judd are also producing Next Actions, about what test they're launching now or tomorrow. There is no collaboration. Frankly, there's no road map or strategy. What will this test prove? How does this affect future projects.
This is not a slam on the team. In fact, that's my point about these meetings. We've gathered data, made conclusions, acting on the data -- all in a silo. We're not collaborating. But meetings like this deter the presenters from announcing data for fear of stagnating the progress in a project. And that's valid.
In my notes, I wrote, What is the purpose of this meeing? Is is educational? Offering recommendations? And I realized, the presenters were not asking for Approval. And they should. Even if it's simply buy-in.
Among the "bad" things happening in meetings like these:
Bosses and colleagues are hearing the news for the first time. They're realizing things are broken and they don't know the current state. Sometimes, they didn't have an Original Goal or Purpose. What was supposed to happen? Now they're figuring it out in real time. The meeting's not long enough for that.
Should the presentation be available ahead of time, and announced through Slack or email? Yes. Will they be read and absorbed before the meeting? Chris will. Will others? Le'ts find out.
Should we be making Next Actions in a silo? No. This affects too many people. But we should have Slack channels for products and keep conversations and proposals going there. If you don't respond, you're out of the loop. And I've been the worst in responding.
Make the data public, even if it's imperfect. I can't get Analytics decks because they're not done yet. Let's trust each other and promise to re-read the completed data.
We're all moving to fast and have to. But we do need to adapt to different challenges -- like time and attention.
To follow up on the lead: Why do Cvent meetings come apart? Personally, I think because there isn't a stated purpose for the meeting and a goal for the conclusion.
Is the meeting educational? Then you're not looking for approvals, just the chance to report and get feedback -- later.
Is the meeting directional? Are you looking for guidance or direction? Say so at the beginning: based on what I'm about to tell you, please advise me or grant approval by the end of this meeting. I'll leave the last 25% of our time for discussion.
These aren't faults; I see them as learning opportunities. There's so much good data and information here at Cvent. Let's set expectations.
Lastly, the Analytics team isn't flawed; they're doing a good job of presenting really good information. The function is new. It shouldn't be; data is foundational and should precede strategy. But Judd and Jared are relatively new and we all are just now learning about ourselves through their data.
I'm really enjoying this job. Thanks.
--30--
Meg was leading her team's analytics breakdown of Q3 web and business performances in North America. The team is good and their information is good. It falls apart in the delivery.
Example: Jared produces data on a specific page or feature, like a navigation pane. People don't attack the data or science, which is good. They do question the decisions that created the product (like a website), which the data is highlighting.
There are problems that come from the actions:
Jared or Judd will make recommendations of what the content or features should do or say. And I think they should be making suggestions or considerations. Because the recommendations are taken as a Next Action, which causes fear in the room.
The better questions, I think, are How did we get here and What should the future state be? Because often, there was no strategy or consideration going into the earlier decision. This slide could be educational and frame the discussion (not argument) over how to do this better now and in the future.
Jared and Judd are also producing Next Actions, about what test they're launching now or tomorrow. There is no collaboration. Frankly, there's no road map or strategy. What will this test prove? How does this affect future projects.
This is not a slam on the team. In fact, that's my point about these meetings. We've gathered data, made conclusions, acting on the data -- all in a silo. We're not collaborating. But meetings like this deter the presenters from announcing data for fear of stagnating the progress in a project. And that's valid.
In my notes, I wrote, What is the purpose of this meeing? Is is educational? Offering recommendations? And I realized, the presenters were not asking for Approval. And they should. Even if it's simply buy-in.
Among the "bad" things happening in meetings like these:
Bosses and colleagues are hearing the news for the first time. They're realizing things are broken and they don't know the current state. Sometimes, they didn't have an Original Goal or Purpose. What was supposed to happen? Now they're figuring it out in real time. The meeting's not long enough for that.
Should the presentation be available ahead of time, and announced through Slack or email? Yes. Will they be read and absorbed before the meeting? Chris will. Will others? Le'ts find out.
Should we be making Next Actions in a silo? No. This affects too many people. But we should have Slack channels for products and keep conversations and proposals going there. If you don't respond, you're out of the loop. And I've been the worst in responding.
Make the data public, even if it's imperfect. I can't get Analytics decks because they're not done yet. Let's trust each other and promise to re-read the completed data.
We're all moving to fast and have to. But we do need to adapt to different challenges -- like time and attention.
To follow up on the lead: Why do Cvent meetings come apart? Personally, I think because there isn't a stated purpose for the meeting and a goal for the conclusion.
Is the meeting educational? Then you're not looking for approvals, just the chance to report and get feedback -- later.
Is the meeting directional? Are you looking for guidance or direction? Say so at the beginning: based on what I'm about to tell you, please advise me or grant approval by the end of this meeting. I'll leave the last 25% of our time for discussion.
These aren't faults; I see them as learning opportunities. There's so much good data and information here at Cvent. Let's set expectations.
Lastly, the Analytics team isn't flawed; they're doing a good job of presenting really good information. The function is new. It shouldn't be; data is foundational and should precede strategy. But Judd and Jared are relatively new and we all are just now learning about ourselves through their data.
I'm really enjoying this job. Thanks.
--30--
Comments
Post a Comment