The ‘Continuity’ Meeting

Ever been in a meeting where the only outcome was to agree more meetings? This may not have been an accident.

In some circumstances, and/or some types of organisations, there can be a constant need to be seen to be progressing along (notice I avoid saying making progress) but a great anxiety about making real decisions. Where great constant scrutiny is applied to any work in progress, holding meetings can be a very visible flag that, ‘yes we are getting on with this subject’.  However, some factors can make this more ‘smoke and mirrors’ than actual:

• where there are significant risks to decision choices;
• where outcomes are uncertain or ambiguous;
• where the environment into which the outcomes will be implemented is itself liable to be unstable;
• where authority levels and decision making scopes are either unclear or in a shared or matrix setting;
• where wider current organisational large scale changes are concurrent and any definitive key actions could be career risking.

In all or any of these circumstances it can deter any person or group from making specific, definite decisions or actions, even if they seem to be progressing the current targeted outcomes. At the same time though, the heavy scrutiny on all work heavily pressures the players to appear to be making good progress. The usual method is to hold many ‘progress’ meetings at which issues, risks, decisions etc are deferred by agreeing to set up separate meetings or committees or studies to address those items, thereby appearing to be actively doing something but in effect continually putting them into the long grass.

This can be often seen quite effectively (but not exclusively) in central and local government environments. In these organisations, public and press scrutiny is constant and can be merciless while continually shifting political situations, budgets and priorities make making real work towards completion of a project a potential career risk depending on the current status of things. Achieving actual outcomes can therefore be luck, accidental or an act of true bravery, but often not by true design.

So, just be aware when joining a meeting if you see signs of such deferments, sub delegating, tangential meetings set up etc. You may be in a ‘continuity’ meeting.  If so you need to make  choice: stay and go along with this, at least aware of our complicity; make excuse to no longer attend and so opt out of the ‘sins’, or be brave and try to propose and enlist support for actual decisions towards an outcome.

The choice will depend on your situation, career hopes, professional integrity and tolerance level for the fine art of filibuster.