Setting Ground Rules for Project Meetings

“Let’s have a meeting to talk about meetings,” said no one ever. But maybe we should. A Microsoft global survey found the #1 workplace distraction is inefficient meetings. The #2? Too many of them. Sound familiar? Last week, I led a meeting effectiveness workshop for a team of 15 at the request of their practice leader—who happens to be my husband. His team’s meeting struggles? Rambling discussions, uneven engagement, unclear outcomes, and lack of follow-through. He thought a meeting AI tool might fix it. Nope. AI can help document meetings, but it can’t make people prepare better, participate more, or drive decisions. The fix? It’s not “Have an agenda”. It’s setting the right meeting norms. My husband was hesitant to put me in the late morning slot–worried the team would tune out before lunch. I told him, “Put me in, coach. I’ll show you engagement.” And I did. For 90 minutes, we tackled meeting norms head-on through interactive discussions and small group exercises. Here are 5 norms they worked through to transform their meetings: 1️⃣ 𝗦𝗲𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴. An agenda is a list of topics. A purpose answers: What critical decision needs to be made? What problem are we solving? Why does this require a discussion? If you can’t summarize the purpose in one sentence with an action verb, you don’t need a meeting. 2️⃣ 𝗕𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗼’𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗺. Some discussions only need two people; others require a small group or the full team. Match the participants and group size to the topic and purpose.  3️⃣ 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲. Before the meeting, define the problem or goal. Identify potential solutions. Recommend one. Outline your criteria for selecting the solution(s). Back it up with data or other relevant information. Preparation = productivity. 4️⃣ 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗮 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻. A good facilitator keeps conversations on track, reins in tangents, and ensures all voices –not just the loudest–are heard. Facilitation matters more than the agenda. 5️⃣ 𝗘𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀. Summarize decisions. Assign action items. Set deadlines. Follow-up to ensure accountability and progress. A meeting without follow-through is just wasted time. The outcome of the workshop? 100% engagement. (One person even admitted she normally tunes out in these things but stayed engaged the entire time!) More importantly, the team aligned on meeting norms and left with actionable steps to improve. Want better meetings? Set better norms. Focus on facilitation. What’s one meeting tip that’s worked well for your team?

Collaborative doesn’t mean chaotic. In Radical Candor, I talk about the GSD Wheel - a cycle that helps teams listen, clarify, debate, decide, persuade, and execute together. But none of that works without one crucial element: ground rules. One of the most powerful things a leader can do is set clear expectations for how decisions get made and how disagreement gets handled along the way. I’ve worked with teams where every decision felt like a battle. I’ve also worked with teams where decision-making felt energizing and inclusive. The difference? Clarity. A few ground rules I’ve seen work well: — We make space for dissent before we decide. — We separate debate from execution. — We don’t let urgency override inclusivity. They may sound simple, but these expectations can transform how your team collaborates under pressure. What’s one ground rule that’s helped your team make better decisions? :) --- Follow Kim Scott and Radical Candor® for more tips on leadership, collaboration, and building a culture where everyone can thrive.

I once worked with a team that was, quite frankly, toxic. The same two team members routinely derailed meeting agendas. Eye-rolling was a primary form of communication. Side conversations overtook the official discussion. Most members had disengaged, emotionally checking out while physically present. Trust was nonexistent. This wasn't just unpleasant—it was preventing meaningful work from happening. The transformation began with a deceptively simple intervention: establishing clear community agreements. Not generic "respect each other" platitudes, but specific behavioral norms with concrete descriptions of what they looked like in practice. The team agreed to norms like "Listen to understand," "Speak your truth without blame or judgment," and "Be unattached to outcome." For each norm, we articulated exactly what it looked like in action, providing language and behaviors everyone could recognize. More importantly, we implemented structures to uphold these agreements. A "process observer" role was established, rotating among team members, with the explicit responsibility to name when norms were being upheld or broken during meetings. Initially, this felt awkward. When the process observer first said, "I notice we're interrupting each other, which doesn't align with our agreement to listen fully," the room went silent. But within weeks, team members began to self-regulate, sometimes even catching themselves mid-sentence. Trust didn't build overnight. It grew through consistent small actions that demonstrated reliability and integrity—keeping commitments, following through on tasks, acknowledging mistakes. Meeting time was protected and focused on meaningful work rather than administrative tasks that could be handled via email. The team began to practice active listening techniques, learning to paraphrase each other's ideas before responding. This simple practice dramatically shifted the quality of conversation. One team member later told me, "For the first time, I felt like people were actually trying to understand my perspective rather than waiting for their turn to speak." Six months later, the transformation was remarkable. The same team that once couldn't agree on a meeting agenda was collaboratively designing innovative approaches to their work. Conflicts still emerged, but they were about ideas rather than personalities, and they led to better solutions rather than deeper divisions. The lesson was clear: trust doesn't simply happen through team-building exercises or shared experiences. It must be intentionally cultivated through concrete practices, consistently upheld, and regularly reflected upon. Share one trust-building practice that's worked well in your team experience. P.S. If you’re a leader, I recommend checking out my free challenge: The Resilient Leader: 28 Days to Thrive in Uncertainty  https://lnkd.in/gxBnKQ8n