Meetings of Mass Destruction

Anybody who has been in the Army for any length of time knows that Soldiers must be adept at such battlefield necessities as weapons handling, calling in a medevac request, and staying awake in briefings.

On the civilian side they are called meetings, but the intent is often the same: to get important information into the hands of those who need it.

One would think that meetings involving Soldiers would be of the most important kind, yet sadly, the Army etched in stone the proper meeting format eons ago, whereby attendees sit in painfully dull silence as the person in charge drones on about his important information.

Meetings can kill, and I had several near-death experiences during my last deployment. This may sound insensitive to those who lose their lives in actual battle, but it's only to highlight the stakes of many military briefings.


This all brings me to another point that can be really annoying. Understanding that, in some cases military leaders send young men and women into life-and-death situations, they too often use that fact to make the most mundane and inconsequential personal projects seem a matter of national security. They pepper talk about coffee runs and photo ops with lables such as "missions," "tasks," and "orders."

But why is it that when the things are most urgent, they deliver the message in the least effective way? The typical Army briefing is a PowerPoint driven, one-sided monotone jargon fest in which most participants (to use the term loosely) leave feeling like part of their soul had just withered away.

You can then imagine my delight when, after way too many of those, I attended a meeting that uplifted and informed. It was my first full "professional development" meeting as a full time teacher since joining the Army nearly three years ago.

Consider a typical meeting I endured while deployed as a public affairs Soldier. It may or may not start on time. In fact, “on time” is relative only to the convenience of the highest ranking person attending. I never recall having a written agenda at any Army meeting, and participation was encouraged only to the extent that it meant saying “yes sir” and “yes ma’am” copiously. “Any questions?” was usually followed promptly by a “good” before anybody could open her mouth.

Contrasted to that, my recent meeting was refreshing, rejuvenating, inspiring, and enriching. The atmosphere was professional, fun, and developmental. We began punctually and a time keeper helped keep the facilitator on pace and efficient. Those with rank or authority certainly didn’t seem to feel the need to flaunt it, and conversations were on point, egalitarian, and creative.

A well known book, Crucial Conversations describes how the point of such meetings should be to "share meaning." At my teacher meeting, I felt like meaning was shared and understood.

As a matter of our school's protocol, we began with a check in designed to get everybody in the mood to collaborate. Then we handled routine business before moving on to the main focus. Decisions were made and intent was disseminated through small working teams who could converse and build understanding.

I made the comment during our evaluation that, in sharpest contrast to Army briefings, leaders didn't try to force anything onto us, but sought that we understood.

It might not have been an issue of national security, but if it were, this small group of teachers might have been able to handle it better than most Army commanders who rely on Talk and Yawn.