Lately I’ve had a fascination with the world’s financial systems. More than just the current crisis, I’ve been reading on the history of finance as well. Currently I’m reading The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World by Niall Ferguson and although I haven’t finished it yet, I can highly recommend it to anyone interested in how money and the intuitions built around it has played a part in history. I have completed reading The Great Crash of 1929 by John Kenneth Galbraith, which is rightfully regarded as the book on the stock market crash that led to the Great Depression.
Near the end of 1929, Mr. Galbraith is discussing President Hoover and how it is wrong to say he did nothing of importance after the crash of the US financial systems. President Hoover, according to Mr. Galbraith, unleashed one of the most American and popular tools that corporations and governments employ to this day: the No-business Meeting. I’ve read and re-read this section many times now, and I’m tempted to frame it for public display. I am incapable of describing the no-business meeting better than Mr. Galbraith, so I will quote him directly:
Men meet together for many reasons in the course of business. The need to instruct or persuade each other. They must agree on a course of action. The find thinking in public more productive or less painful than thinking in private. But there are at least as many reasons for meetings to transact no business. Meetings are held because men seek companionship or, at a minimum, wish to escape the tedium of solitary duties. They yearn for the prestige which accrues to the man who presides over meetings, and this leads them to convoke assemblages over which they can preside. Finally, there is the meeting which is called not because there is business to be done, but because it is necessary to create the impression that business is being done. Such meetings are more than a substitute for action. They are widely regarded as action.
The fact no business is transacted at a no-business meeting is not normally a serious cause of embarrassment to those attending. Numerous formulas have been devised to prevent discomfort. Thus scholars, who are great devotees of the no-business meeting, rely heavily on the exchange-of-ideas justification. To them the exchange of ideas is an absolute good. Any meeting at which ideas are exchanged is, therefore, useful. This justification is nearly ironclad. It is very hard to have a meeting of which it can be said that no ideas were exchanged.
The success of the no-business meeting has gone far beyond the financial sector to exist in every place business is conducted. It is so common as to be assumed. Rare is it for the ancient instrument of the agenda be required or presented. It is often accepted to simply arrange for a time, space, and attendees, and do away with any stated topic. In times of great crisis the no-business is the most popular, if not effective, method for remedy.
Posted By Mike On Friday, February 20, 2009
Filed under review life |
Comments (2)
Walter Lounsbery
-
Friday, February 20, 2009
11:48:31 AM
We seem to be eradicating a lot of hard-won knowledge as time goes by. This definitely applies to meetings. For example, did your reference mention "consensus" as a valid meeting action? This is very important whenever action is required of a committee. Also a very painful process. Also the way the Congress used to work before they got lazy.
Another case is the meeting to decide on the meeting agenda. I guess at least there is expectation of an action there. Sometimes very little happens, though.
I admit I am guilty of convening a variation on the no-business group. But at least I put a clue in the name. It was the Working Group on Fighter Agility and we had a great time. But there were no solid action items before the budget ran out. Working Groups rarely do much real work, you see...
I am also curious why the word "committee" wasn't used. Perhaps because, when people threw out the reasonable rules and expectations, every committee became an ad-hoc committee? At least committees are assigned for a purpose, even if barely effective. So all meetings become no-name, no-business meetings?
I highly recommend the most important reference ever for meetings and organizations: Robert Rules of Order. Read it, understand it, and you will know how to do better meetings. Just don't tell anyone where your ideas came from!
Mike
-
Friday, February 20, 2009
12:55:45 PM
I think with "committee" it is implied to a purpose, as is working group. These meetings are set around a topic and ultimately to produce a decision or recommendation. These may be effective or ineffective meetings, but they differ from the no-business meeting which has no ultimate purpose other than the meeting itself.
The news reports on the no-business meetings with statements such as "... members of congress met with the president today to discuss ..." or "... the big three auto makers held a summit in Detroit on...", then follows with clips of attendees stating that they "feel progress is being made", "opened lines of communication", or my personal favorite "established a framework in which the problem can be solved. " Many times the attendees will state their confidence that an outcome can come quickly, without any details on how that outcome may be reached.
