Well that meeting is quite a contrast to the first one. We talked about the fight or the confrontation in the first one, this is a very stark contrast to that meeting. One point just to be clear this type of meeting, we're going to talk more about that, is a space that we've created by taking time out and stepping back. And this is a very abrupt contrast, you can't expect when you first try to set up this type of meeting that you're going to get everyone to agree and behave appropriately and accordingly. So this contrast with our actors in these two scenes, part one and part two, is a stark contrast. And probably this scene two is something that you and your team will have to work towards accomplishing. But you can see in this space that people have time, they are listened to, people are in the meeting as opposed to distracted away from the meeting. >> Absolutely, and it's also very important to notice the role that the leader played in the second part of the meeting, that's worth observing. Because if you're talking about a meeting without hierarchies we are talking about a meeting where people have space to listen and to be listened to, and the not hierarchical part doesn't really come in place without the leader role modeling it. >> Yeah, first of all the time out that we're going to do something different, we are consciously and aware of the fact that that meeting didn't work, so what can we do about it? The leader has to put on the green light for that to happen, they have to be clear in their directions to the group because otherwise people won't know how to behave. So that's an important leader function, but then it's important for the leader not to fill that space with their own voice, you're creating space for other people to participate. >> Absolutely. >> That's very interesting, listening to both of you I'm thinking so on one hand the leader legitimizes the behavior by role modelling it. On the other hand, I also saw the members stepping up to that space that was then created. Because I almost felt that there were ground rules, that there was permission to talk, to disagree, to call things out, to say what is truly on the mind and not having just keep it within my own mind. So it almost feels as if, like you said Alan, it doesn't happen I mean, it won't happen tomorrow. >> Right. >> It seems to be like an evolution. >> Well, and I think it has to be an abrupt, discontinuous, the same group is going to have another meeting, no. The same group is going to have a particular meeting that we would call an after action review, AAR, after action review, that is a meeting to assess what we just experienced. And in that meeting I think it is important one, you're calling a timeout, we want to examine what just happened, and all figure out a better way. Two, yes the leader needs to initiate that, needs to make that okay, needs to set some ground rules about turn off your cell phone, I'm turning off my cell phone let's all follow suit, let's all be here and not distracted. So those are important steps, but there's also an important step of saying okay, what is this meeting about? We're going to examine our interaction, we're going to examine whether we're listening, whether we're paying attention, whether we're interrupting other people. Whether the assumptions are flying around or whether we're going to examine the assumptions that we're making, taking the time. So some of that is slowing down and it's probably a little bit mechanical at first about giving everyone a chance to talk. >> And I think we saw a brilliant example of what you just mentioned, assumptions being tested. Because we saw the chief medical officer again questioning the competence of the housekeeping team and she almost said a solution is not going to come from the housekeeping. And then the head of health and safety called out that assumption and said, but you're just making an assumption. >> Yes. >> And she acknowledged that, so I thought that was a great example of questioning and getting your assumptions tested. >> Yeah, I think it's really an important step to deal with specifics. We all have to start listening to each other, well no, let's examine the times when people didn't listen to each other. Let's be specific and detailed, not vague and general. Let's be nice to each other, let's be polite, as we've seen there's plenty of meetings that are not effective because people are being polite. And then there's the other type of meeting we saw that's a fight and everyone's throwing jabs at each other, or punches, but not necessarily listening. So we're looking for some space where you're not being polite, you're really putting issues on the table, but in a way that is slowed down and examined and into details and specifics about how we might be able to do this more effectively. >> Well it sounds like that there is a phased approach to this, and I'm learning this as I'm listening to you. So first is leave the rank and hierarchy at the door. Second is the leader legitimizes, role models the behavior, creates permission, ground rules, space. The third, you spoke of something that I sort of got stuck by was examine the process, what was going on, being in the moment. >> Well I think there's an important point there. Yes, we are examining our interaction, but to do it in a hierarchical way would be well I'm going to go first, I'm the leader. No, create the space for other people to participate, because if I go first as the leader, then everyone has to react to what I say. So this is an important aspect of the leader being able to lead by holding and creating space for other people to participate. Not doing what most of our leaders and most of us ourselves do, is take an uncomfortable situation and fill it with our own voice, that's more comfortable than creating that space and not knowing what Ramya is going to say next, or Amrita, or Dana. >> Absolutely, I was going to say goals, what is the goal of the meeting? Why are we here, why did we invest so much time sitting here, and of course what went well and what did not? >> Well, and let's be clear about that too, it's not about what you did. >> Did, yes. >> It's not about blame, it's about effectiveness. What did we do, well in this case what did we do that prevented us from really exchanging ideas and listening to each other? But in other meetings it will be about specifics and details, not about blame. >> Mm-hm. >> What works, what doesn't work? What do we do next time, what do we keep? But what do we need to try different, to try a different approach. And it's about the interactions of the group, not about what you did. Well I'm in control of my response to what you did, I need to control my response, not necessarily you controlling what you say. So we need to take our own responsibility in this and focus on effectiveness, not blame. >> Oftentimes groups or teams wait quite a long time before doing an after action review, and we want to really encourage you to do them frequently. Some teams that I've worked with have set aside the last five minutes of every meeting where they do a very brief after action [INAUDIBLE] because they're thinking about what can we do differently in the next meeting. And so we encourage you to do some format like that to keep learning, keep continually learning about what's working, what isn't, and how you can improve it. >> And I like that question of what worked well. I mean, even if we do not find that five minutes at the end of the meeting, the next meeting there's an opportunity to start with that. Because I think that's a good reframing as against what did not, start it with what worked well. So as you say, the different routines of are all dissipated, to some extent people started looking at the positives and then build on from there, isn't this what we call the appreciative inquiry? >> I want to stay with that one point though just for a moment, because these meetings can seem a bit mechanical, especially at first, as you get used to these different roles. because our tendency is to grab the airtime, I have something to say and I want everyone else to know it. So one of the mechanical things, or I think things we need to do in these after action reviews, is to slow down that exchange and before people claim the space in going first get everybody to write down a few ideas. What are some of your thoughts about how we can be more effective? Rather than blurt them out, and vie for who gets to go first, let's write them down, what are some key points I want to make? And just that processes of writing them down I think in creating that silence while everybody is processing in parallel, if you will, then we're going to have a more rich exchange as opposed to just who gets to go first. >> Yeah, I think that's a good idea and it helps to do that so you don't recapitulate or repeat the first meeting in the second meeting. >> Well, what I also think is the case is when Ramya says her point and I that's one of my points, it's on my list, I don't have to say it now, Ramya has just said it or Amrita. And so it's been said and now it's important to respond to the issue, not put up another topic. Let's talk about that issue, let's make sure we understand, that I understand your point of view on that, or you understand mine, or what we might do about it. This idea of responding, this is a test I think, a litmus test of effective meetings. Are people just blurting out their own ideas, advocating their own points of view, or are they really looking for clarification on the points of view that others have given? Or expressing well, I have a different view of that and here's why, explaining their thinking, these are the things that productive conversations are made out of. They're responding to each other's, what they've contributed, as opposed to just adding their own.