MEETING PEOPLE—THE GAMES WE PLAY

“People who enjoy meetings should not be in charge of anything”

--Thomas Sowell, American Writer and Economist

Please excuse my title. As they say in sports, there is a little ‘trickeration’ at work.  I really didn’t mean to imply that this blog was about the act of meeting people. No, in fact, I was using the word ‘meeting’ as a descriptive adjective—not a verb. My intent in this blog is to write about the types of people I have observed in the countless meetings I attended during my career. Just for grins, I use to classify my peers and others by virtue of their similar behaviors—sort of my own taxonomy of meeting participants.

As I wrote in my last blog, “meetings are the bane of most employees”.  Meetings, because they are necessary, however, are not going away. An efficient and effective meeting is a thing of beauty—both in design and execution. Unfortunately, the best designed meeting can be undermined by one or more of the participants. And, we all have been conspirators and co-conspirators in derailing a well designed meeting—sometimes consciously, sometimes unwittingly. I realize that to enumerate is to limit. Still, I want to share my personal taxonomy of meeting participants. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, empirical or even equitable. It is, simply, the product of my twisted world view of human nature.

In fact, my discussion of the types I am about to talk about often described me—or as the cartoon cat, Garfield, would say “I resemble that remark.” Still, in the spirit of the blissful blogger, I will tread on to the taxonomy. Ok, let’s leap into the world according to me. 

No doubt there are others that could be added to a list of meeting types. For example, the Slick, the Sly and theWicked  along with the Crackberry addict come to mind. 

However, I will list the types I have identified below and describe them to the best of my recollection. They are as follows: 

The Smoozer

The Socialite

The Socrates

The Silent

Understand, my friends, that this list was purely a creation of a fatigued and meeting addled mind—i.e., a mind, often, paying more attention to the participant’s behaviors than the presentations.

So let us get started. I did not list the most important participant in the meeting—the leader or boss. The leader/boss can be, either, a facilitator, referee or circus ringmaster. Armed with a clear agenda, s/he sets the tone for the meeting—the ambiance or climate. S/he can either follow or subvert the agenda. And, if there is no agenda; there is no meeting—just a gathering of people looking for reasons why they are sharing the same space and time. Without strong leadership, even a meeting with a clear agenda will devolve into a series of sideshows starring one or more of the participants I listed above as types. The leader facilitator makes sure that the meeting is not dominated by any one type of participant. Looking through the leader's eyes, here is how the particular types of participants might behave in a meeting.

The ‘Smoozer’ is usually recognized by his/her fixed gaze and ‘bobbing head’, signifying approval to any sound, word or statement uttered by the boss. Sometimes the smoozer even adds a sound element to his/her head gesture. The sound is usually a soft and purring “yes” –audible enough to be heard by the boss. Additionally, this type is very good at “summarizing” what the boss has said for the benefit of the 'less astute' in the meeting.

Yet, there is usually one type in the meeting who benefits from this summarization—that being the “Socialite”. He/she is so busy with their own agenda—i.e., cracking jokes, reliving the weekend or discussing their kids’ latest accomplishments—that sometimes they appear peeved, because the rest of the engaged participants are “talking too loud”. You can spot the ‘socialite’, most often, by his/her fixed smile and darting eyes. Their objective is to look engaged. As such, they, frequently, borrow the “bobbing head” routine of the ‘smoozer’. Yet, as we use to say, “Lights on, nobody home”.

Perhaps the most vexatious type is the “Socrates” or ‘know it all’.  This is the person who has positioned him/herself as the ‘keeper of all insight’ in the known universe. Until Socrates weights in, all perspectives are subject to doubt. Ironically, other meeting participants defer to this pompous and punctilious egotist. Socrates sometimes dominates dialogue and, at other times, is a sniper, waiting for the opportune time to attack and correct. The strange thing about the Socrates type is that they are often ‘right—but, more often, irrelevant’. He/she arbitrarily sets up a false premise, attacks or defends it and then ‘waxes eloquently’ on why the rest of the team should adopt this point of view. Interestingly enough, the Socrates type has the discipline “to keep his powder dry” until he/she sees an opening.

While the Socrates type can mimic the Silent type for a short period of time, they cannot sustain it. The Silent type can sit through a 3 hour meeting without saying a word; without head or body gesturing; without making a single contribution to the meeting agenda. In a sense, they are a selfish and cowardly lot. They subscribe to Abraham Lincoln’s old adage that “it is better to be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and prove it”. However, often they are the most opinionated and talkative among the team—after the meeting was adjourned. When asked, why they didn’t contribute? They will usually claim that everyone else was dominating the dialogue or, as one friend pointed out, they assert that they "didn't want to create waves". They are the turtles of the corporate world; sticking their necks out only to cross the road back to the coffee room.

In summary, I realize that the types of meeting participants do not always fall into such a neat and tidy taxonomy. Still, that is my point of view—and I’m sticking to it.