Steve Preda

Steve Preda

14 Jun, 2018

One of my EOS clients reported that his employees resisted the idea of rating all Level 10 Meetings. They felt it was an unnecessary administrative burden and a waste of time. If you have been thinking the same here are my thoughts and observations about the subject.

The idea of the Level 10 Meeting is that we all take responsibility to make it a highly useful time investment. We rate the meetings to confirm that people find it valuable and if they don’t (ratings lower than 8) we process the issue and find out what is causing frustration / can be improved.

The usual problems are that people stray from the agenda, get off at tangents, don’t hold each other accountable (let each other off the hook), or are not raising or discussing issues openly and honestly. When group members don’t rate the meeting, they are effectively resisting accountability for the quality of the meeting and all that it entails from them, including delivering on rocks and scorecards and raising, confronting and solving issues.

If you allow them to not rate, they will no longer be responsible for raising their opinion publicly and can undermine the meeting and the leader in private. Plus, you will have to rely on the sheer power of your personality to maintain the discipline of the meeting, which may not be sustainable or even desirable long term, as it will create a “them-vs-you” dynamic.

Let the process do the heavy lifting for you, and via the rating process, force people to be forthright about their assessments of the meeting and to have to deal with the issues in the open, rather than in the corridors.

Do I get this right?  I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject in the comments.