Get your "yak yak" on

"I think we need to consider the strain this might put on our sales force" Ed said looking up from his laptop, during a department meeting a few months ago. I was surprised by the statement, but not because it was not a valid point (it was). I was surprised because Ed was sitting next to me, IMing jokes at the time to a coworker who was lucky enough not to be in this 2-hour yawn-a-thon of a meeting. I thought Ed was as spaced out as I was, but apparently not - at least for that moment. He chimed in with a comment that was relevant, important and created a discussion in the meeting. I looked over at Ed, and he smiled, turned to me and said in low voice "gotta get your comments in."

He was right. It is important to at least appear that you are contributing and adding value, especially when you are not. To all outward appearances, Ed was totally tuned out. He was typing away at his laptop, paying no attention to the speaker, or anyone around him. But with that one sentence, he erased all those negative perceptions.

Ed and I spoke about this phenomena often. There is a need to make sure that you make a comment or contribution in any discussion so that you appear to be an engaged member of the group and one whose opinion matters and should be heeded. This is especially important if you are looking to move up in an organization. It doesn't matter too much what was said, or even the resolution of the discussion, so long as it appears you are a concerned manager. Making random comments or jokes may be fun, but too many can ultimately lead to your downfall. The key is, how often do you contribute with a comment of value.

Numerous factors could determine how much you should speak. I began gathering data based on meetings I was attending, to try to figure out the correct balance. I started noting and collecting possible influences on the number of comments as part of my research. The number of variables I was gathering seemed to be getting out of hand. I decided the only solution was to apply my Six Sigma training.

Six Sigma, for those of you not indoctrinated, is a way of analysing all the critical factors that can effect an outcome and identify the key variables that need to be controlled to run an event. In this case, I had to ID all the factors (the X's) that could effect the number of comments that needed to be made in a meeting to produce the outcome (or Y) that I was an engaged and contributing member of the team.

After considering all the X's, my statistical analysis revealed that only two had P-values which showed they had an influence on the outcome. They were:

1. Length of the meeting

2. Number of people attending the meeting (including yourself)

Length of meeting is fairly straight forward and it is a direct relationship. The longer the meeting, the more comments need to be made. Number of people in attendance is an inverse relationship. The more people who are at the meeting, the fewer comments should be made. It is part of the balance of making comments - you need to contribute, without dominating the conversation. You don't want to come off as a know-it-all.

Using these two variables, I was able to generate an R^2 0f 78.8%, which for this non-scientific study I think is good enough. Other factors considered but which did not make the cuts include: Level of the person chairing the meeting, how many levels you are below the meeting chair, length of the ensuing discussion resulting from your comment. All had some effect but without a valid P-score.

This is all fine and well, I am sure you are saying, but how does this help me? By using the X coefficients and the Y-intercept, a simple formula can be created to let you know how many comments you should make in a meeting, based on these two factors:

6.01 + [(.094) x (length of meeting in minutes)] + [(-0.41) x (No. of attendees)] = # of comments

This will allow you to figure our how much talking you need to do by the time the meeting is over. For example, lets say you were faced with a 2 hour meeting with 24 other people. The correct number of comments to make would be:

6.01 + [0.094 x 120] + [-0.41 x 25] =

6.01 + 11.33 - 10.2 = 7 comments (or speaking every 16.75 minutes)

I put this formula into an excel spreadsheet for easy reference; it also helps me keep track of the number of comments made, too, instead of wasting valuable braincells. For example, I write this during my 2 hour meeting with 24 other people, and have just made comment #6 "But do the December financials take into consideration the restructuring of the US organization?"

Ed looked up from his laptop and nodded in approval. Yep, my efficiency in wasting time has reached a new level.