"Why structured efficient meetings miss the point"

I’ve been thinking a lot about Stacey’s idea that management is about broadening and deepening the conversation, and I’ve noticed that in my day-to-day, I tend to do the exact opposite.

Now I know I keep banging on about Stacey, but honestly it’s been a revelation. So hear me out...

What I’ve started to realise is that the traditional view of management, is optimised to narrow and shallow the conversation.

Take retrospectives. What do we do?
We pick from a menu of structures. We vote. We summarise. We move on.
If there’s no action item, we wonder if the meeting was even useful.

It’s all very efficient. But also… kind of empty?

We’ve come to see conversation as a means to an end: alignment, clarity, output.
But in complex work, that’s backwards.

Stacey’s point is that the conversation is the work.
Especially when things are unclear, tense, or messy.
As they almost always are, cos you know, language and stuff!

Broadening the conversation means inviting perspectives that challenge your own.
Deepening it means staying with discomfort long enough to understand what’s really going on.

And I think I’ve been missing that.

So I’m going to try something different.

What if my next 1:1 or retro had no structure?
What if it had no goal?
What if the point was simply to broaden and deepen whatever conversation comes up, and see where that takes us?

In the next few emails, I’ll explore what this shift actually looks like in practice.
Not therapy. Not endless talking.
Just a more honest, more human way to lead in the messy middle.

Until next time,
Dermot
​The Messy Middle

​

✉️ Enjoying The Messy Middle?​
If this sparked something useful, consider forwarding it to a colleague or friend, it might help them too.

If someone sent this email your way and you’d like to get it direct, you can sign up here.