When exploring how to communicate more effectively in meetings, we stumbled upon a golden archive that opened our eyes to the long-standing, poor productivity habits many organizations have been practicing for decades, and don’t even know it. We discuss the amusing parallels found in a once-classified CIA manual used to undermine enemies of the nation in World World II.

Sabotaging productivity

The CIA published and secretly distributed the “Simple Sabotage Field Manual” in 1944 to citizens sympathetic to the Allies living in Axis nations. The pamphlet outlined sixteen ways for everyday people to best sabotage the United States’ World War II enemies by impairing organizations’ productivity.

The suggested methods to purposely squash productivity are all-too-common behaviors found in modern-day organizations world-wide…

It was shared in an attempt to help the Allies reduce production in factories, offices, and transportation lines to weaken the country ultimately.

“Some of the instructions seem outdated; others remain surprisingly relevant,” says the description of the pamphlet on the CIA’s website. “Together, they are a reminder of how easily productivity and order can be undermined.”

The manual was declassified in 2008 and is available to the public. The irony is that the suggested methods to purposely squash productivity are all-too-common behaviors found in modern-day organizations world-wide, practices that contribute to ineffective communication and hinder efficiency.

We’ve chosen four of them to dissect below to shed light on the patterns and habits we unknowingly partake in that obstruct effective communication in meetings; then, we offer counter-suggestions for optimum communication.

“Timeless Tips for Simple Sabotage” CIA manual instructions:

1. Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences.
2. Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
3. Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
4. Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.

4 effective communication strategies for productive meetings.

1. Create an inclusive environment

Why do most people dread meetings? Among several reasons, it is usually because they feel they are a waste of their precious time and that they will be talked at—rather than being an active part of the conversation—about information that does not interest or pertain to them. In other words, they fear the meeting will be long, boring, and pointless.

And unfortunately, most meetings are. A study by the Harvard Business Review found that, of 182 senior managers surveyed among a range of industries, 71% said meetings are unproductive and inefficient; 62% said meetings miss the opportunity to bring teams together.

When you structure your meeting like a long-winded lecture, you are more likely to lose the interest and focus of the attendees. And when your talking points are backed by personal anecdotes rather than substantial evidence or data, people will lose interest. They want to have a purpose for taking time out of their day to be there.

Respect their time and express a desire for their contribution. A meeting should not be a one-person show. The best meetings are a collaborative experience. It is highly unlikely that people want to sit idly and listen to a speech of considerable length that they have little connection to. Create an inclusive environment by getting everyone involved. Ask for opinions and feedback about the objective you want to obtain. Open up the floor for brainstorming and collaborative discussion, and listen.

When people feel that they are an active part of the conversation and genuinely being heard, they are much more likely to participate and contribute proficiently.

2. Stay on topic

Clearly identify a purpose for the meeting you wish to call, then create a detailed agenda for it before the meeting—including start and end time—and any scheduled breaks and activities that will be included.

Outline the agenda with only relevant and essential topics that will be discussed, then follow it carefully. This will help to keep the conversation focused solely on what you need to discuss, which eliminates wasted time and the chance for attendees to lose focus on what needs to be accomplished. Bringing up irrelevant issues, especially frequently, significantly alters productivity and efficiency.

It is counterproductive to discuss anything in a meeting that is irrelevant to your purpose. Therefore, it is imperative to stick to your agenda and stay on topic to have the most successful meeting as possible. Stay focused on the goal, and redirect the conversation back to it if it strays off course. Only discussing the purpose of the meeting will heighten productivity, and staying on schedule ensures that everyone’s time is respected.

3. Decide and commit

Firm decisions make meetings productive. This includes making decisions about expectations before the start of the session, then explicitly communicating the agenda at the very beginning of the meeting so that everyone knows what to expect (in meeting topic and length), as well as setting guidelines for how the meeting will be run so that everyone is on the same page from the start. There should be no surprises.

When you are unprepared and fail to communicate the meeting structure and expectations, you risk wasting time bantering about trivial matters–for example, wordings of communications and minutes–that take away from the objective; it is inefficient communication.

An effective way to communicate better in meetings is to pre-determine a decider. This individual will serve as a facilitator, and their job is to help guide the conversation and ensure a clear understanding and concise consensus (when applicable) is reached by the end of the meeting that everyone respects.

It is important to note that not everyone will completely agree with all matters discussed in a meeting. And that’s okay. Resolutions should be respected by the group and left alone after decided to avoid stagnation, i.e., wasted time and low levels of productivity. Once a decision is made, recognize it and move on. The most productive meetings are focused on uninterrupted forward momentum. Therefore, digging up past matters from previous meetings that were already decided on do not contribute to effective communication in the present.

Productivity is delicate and necessary for a prosperous business. As discussed above, it can also be easily compromised. The danger comes when we are not aware that how we communicate can hinder it. Being aware of poor communication tactics, then, and how to correct them will help you to have more successful communication in your meetings, and therefore, get the most out of them.

Do you want to run more productive meetings?

Voltage Control facilitates design thinking workshops, innovation sessions, and Design Sprints. Please reach out at hello@voltagecontrol.com for a consultation.

The post Lessons on Productivity from a Declassified 1944 CIA Manual appeared first on Voltage Control.

This is part of my series on thought leaders in the innovation space.

When Bill Gates, Malcolm Gladwell, and Tim Ferriss all recommended a new book, I’ll probably grab a copy. Soon after it was released last March, I read Safi Bahcall’s Loonshots: How to Nurture the Crazy Ideas that Win Wars, Cure Diseases, and Transform Industries. Having really enjoyed the book, I was excited to talk to him on the phone a few weeks ago.

We spoke about Loonshots and the book’s ideas on business and innovation. Our conversation touched on many provocative ideas, such as how team structure and incentives can influence the way people operate and perform.

“If The Da Vinci Code and Freakonomics had a child together, it would be called Loonshots.” — Senator Bob Kerrey

Before we dig into highlights from our conversation, let me tell you a bit more about the impressive Safi. In 2001, Safi co-founded a biotechnology company that developed new drugs for cancer. He led its IPO and served as its CEO for 13 years. In 2008, he was named E&Y New England Biotechnology Entrepreneur of the Year. In 2011, he worked with President Obama’s council of science advisors (PCAST) on the future of national research. Safi received his BA in physics from Harvard summa cum laude and his Ph.D. in physics from Stanford. Safi regularly speaks with leadership teams about innovation, transformation, and reinvention.

Structure, Not Culture

The red thread through our conversation (and one of the main topics in Loonshots) was the idea of how structure defines organizations. “I use storytelling to illustrate that — for example, structure, rather than culture, helped the allies in World War II. There are takeaways, lessons, and rules that companies can apply to innovate faster and better.”

As well as structure, another significant theme was the two forces at play inside any organization: “Whenever you organize people into a group with a reward tied to their mission, you automatically create two competing forces, a tug of war.”

“Whenever you organize people into a group with a reward tied to their mission, you automatically create two competing forces, a tug of war.”

Broadly, I’d describe these two forces as 1) the more “wild,” entrepreneurial, or artistic force and 2) the more conservative, safe, and hierarchical force.

Safi talked about how these competing forces have specific patterns of behavior; he uses his physics background to compare these business patterns to the behavior of water molecules — there is both the flow of liquid and the rigidity of ice. This metaphor helps Safi underscore the difficulty of changing behavior patterns or culture.

“Changing culture is incredibly hard. No amount of singing ‘Kumbaya,’ holding hands, or forcing people to watch a video will change culture. Just like when a glass of water changes from liquid to solid, there’s no CEO molecule with a bullhorn saying, ‘I think it’s 33 Fahrenheit, everybody slosh around. Oh wait, it’s 31, everybody line up.’ That’s called an emergent behavior in physics. They just do it.”

“Changing culture is incredibly hard. No amount of singing ‘Kumbaya,’ holding hands, or forcing people to watch a video will change culture.”

Stake vs. Rank

Safi argues that one of the reasons that it’s hard to enact change in companies is because their existing reward systems lead to specific behaviors. “When you create a team or a company, you create these two forces — one is ‘stake and outcome,’ and the other is ‘perks of rank.’”

“Stake and outcome” is when a business’ outcome or monetary gains directly— and significantly—benefit the people working there. Safi explained: “Let’s say you have ten people at a small biotech company. You’re developing a cancer drug. If it works, everyone is a hero millionaire. It fails; everyone is unemployed. Stake and outcome are huge.”

On the other end of corporate rewards and incentives is what he calls “perks of rank.” He told another story to illustrate: “Now, imagine you’re inside Pfizer. Same drug, same people. Simply the forces are different. Your stake and outcome is tiny. But, if you can make funny remarks in meetings and say something that your boss agrees with and so on, then you might get promoted. So at Pfizer, perks of rank are huge, and stake and outcomes are tiny.”

That’s why Safi believes some organizations are apt to reject wild ideas — they are set up for “perks of rank” versus “stakes and outcome.”

However, the importance of the concept is that by understanding and identifying these forces, you can begin to manage them. “Once you understand a phase transition, you can begin to understand those aspects of a structure and manage it to do what you need. The key is understanding that there are two different phases. Just like there’s a solid and a liquid phase.”

Safi believes that some large companies think they are giving employees “stake and outcome,” but in actuality, they’re not. “Large companies, say ‘Let’s give everybody stock options. Now they’re owners.’ No, they’re not, they’re not owners. Owners are someone who’s outcome of their work is directly tied to their incentives and rewards. For example, if you work harder on your coffee machine, it’s going to move the equity needle by zero. If you work poorly on your coffee machine, it’s going to move the equity needle of your company by zero.” In other words, there’s not enough incentive for the employee to innovate inside this reward structure because the payback for that behavior is minimal.

“If you reward rank, you will create a political culture. If you celebrate and reward results and ideas, you will create an innovative culture.”

Instead, inside large corporations, employees are typically rewarded for playing politics versus being creative. Safi says: “If you play smart politics and suck up to your boss and do a decent job, you might get promoted, and that’s going to matter. So that’s how you encourage politics. Structure drives culture. If you reward rank, you will create a political culture. If you celebrate and reward results and ideas, you will create an innovative culture. It’s less about what you say or what movies you insist people watch.”

The Two Phases

Safi doesn’t see the two types of behaviors or structures as bad or good. Both have their place and benefits. Businesses must have both to succeed and need to learn how to balance the “core” and the “new.”

It’s not about turning everyone into wild-and-crazy innovators with no organizational hierarchy. He stresses that specific patterns are essential for certain aspects of a business: “To make something, you have to create a bridge to the soldiers and the manufacturers who will scale it up and deliver it to customers on time, on budget, and on spec.”

“The takeaway is that there are two phases — solid and liquid. Embrace wild, new innovative ideas, focus on franchise and execution…I’m not a believer that it’s different types of people. Just like if you take a molecule of water, you drop it into a glass of liquid, it’ll slosh around with the other ones. If you drop that same molecule into a block of ice, it’ll freeze. It’s not a property of the molecule; it’s a property of the environment.”

In other words, we might think that people are naturally entrepreneurial or naturally conservative, but Safi sees it more as people molding to their environment. He told this story about when he ran a bio-tech start-up: “We used to tell each other, ‘We’re innovative because we’re risk-taking entrepreneurs and those big corporate guys are risk-averse…’ As we grew up, matured, and started to work with them, we saw that they’re just like us. Exactly like us, and when we would hire them, they were us. And then they would go back to the large company, and they would be that risk-averse. It’s because it’s the environment, the emerging behavior, and the structure.”

Again, this risk-averse nature can be a positive and is even essential: “If you’re trying to manufacture guns, planes, and ships, you need very high-quality control and low failure rates. Risk is a bad thing. If you’ve taken the risk out of a battle — thumbs up, but, if you go to an artist and say, ‘You’ve taken all the risk out of your art,’ that’s a horrific insult.”

So, risk-averse structures and rewards work in specific environments, but failure should be pushed and utterly encouraged with the groups that need to be new, visionary, and innovative.

“You need that artist-creator group to be failing — to be trying ten things, nine of which fail.”

“You want to be trying ten things, and nine of them should fail. And if they don’t, then you’re not pushing the envelope. You’re doing a bad job because your competitor will find something better. You need that artist-creator group to be failing — to be trying ten things, nine of which fail. One should be trying wacky new things; one should be delivered on time, on budget, on spec to customers.”

Org Design

When you know what “type” your team is, that should inform your incentives and rewards. Instead, Safi talked about how companies usually end up somewhere in the muddy middle. He calls this the “What temperature do you like your tea?” question: “If you poll a big audience at South by Southwest and ask them, “What temperature do you like your tea?” the average that you will get is lukewarm room temperature. No one likes room temperature tea. The reason you’re getting that answer is that half like it hot and half like it iced, and the average is lukewarm.”

He continued: “The reason [companies] are getting incentives and management wrong is because it’s asking about the average across the company. Once you realize that there are two phases, there are two completely different objectives. One, you want to maximize risk; one you want to minimize risk. One you want very high, on time, on budget, quality control and then have incentives aligned with that goal. And the other, you want them trying all sorts of new stuff.”

Manage the transfer

The hope is that leaders, teams, and companies can tend to both sides — core and innovation. Additionally, companies need to find successful ways to bridge these two worlds. How does the innovative, artistic, or creative work transfer to the business-minded operations? It’s easy to generate good ideas; it’s not as easy to bring those ideas to life. Safi says: “The failure point is never or rarely in the idea generation. The failure is almost always in the transfer to the field, both directions.”

Some of the issues stem from opposing cultures or patterns: “It starts because they don’t like each other, and for a good reason. [One group] is busy, they’re paid on commission, they’re not paid to try crazy new stuff. With the artists, it’s what I call the ‘beautiful baby program.’ This is a beautiful baby. It’s so beautiful. [But the other guys] see vomit and poop. And that’s exactly right; they’re both right. Babies are beautiful, and they’re covered in vomit and poop. They have nice promising things, but they’re also full of flaws and warts and crap and shit and stuff that blows up, and that never works right.”

Additionally, the tension between the two groups goes back to different incentives. If a product goes poorly, the “soldiers” are not rewarded for failure like the creatives: “It’s not how they’re rewarded. It’s not how they’re measured. It’s not how they’re incentivized.”

In other words, each group needs a matching incentive system and organizational structure: “One you have to incentivize failure, the other you have to decentivize failure. One you want a flat organization, one you want structure.”

“One you have to incentivize failure, the other you have to decentivize failure. One you want a flat organization, one you want structure.”

To define the right management style, organizational structure, and incentives, you need to know what you want to achieve. “When you want accuracy, you want a narrow structure because you want redundancy, and redundancy is perfect. When you’re manufacturing planes, you don’t want a lot of variability or innovation in the freaking screw. But, over here [in innovation], you want as flat as possible because you don’t want it to be about politics and shooting your neighbor’s ideas down and getting promoted. You want it to be a bunch of people, more like a club.”

If you want to read my other articles about innovation experts and practitioners, please check them all out here.

The post Structure Creates Culture appeared first on Voltage Control.