Larry D. Lauer

This week I had the pleasure of attending a really productive retreat.  It made me think about all the others I attended over the years that seemed to be a total waste of time. I found myself reflecting on what made them so ineffective.

First, the agenda was “off the mark.”  It usually was the product of an individual’s thoughts about what would be both enlightening and fun.  The result was an “ice-breaker” activity” followed by each person giving a report of divisional activities.  At the end of the day, it all just felt unproductive. No one’s “top-of-the-mind” concerns were adequately addressed. 

When attendees are asked ahead of time for their big concerns, the list usually contains a combination of current urgent issues and longer range worries.  And when a retreat is designed to address the most important of these, it will be headed to a grand and most productive conclusion…even without the ice-breaker exercise.

Second, a retreat can go off track when essential people are not there.  All too often the discussion will take off in a direction that really requires the participation of absent experts.  Many times the talk proceeds, nonetheless. When all is said and done, however, nothing gets decided… or even worse, decisions are made that must be changed later. It’s critical, then, to examine the agenda ahead of time and make sure essential players are there…even if it’s just for the time their issue is discussed.

Third, a retreat can be a waste of time when the attendees do not feel free to be open or honest, or when they are mostly competing for attention or resources.  This is a problem that is not easily resolved. It usually is the result of how groups have interacted with each other in the past. I have been a part of executive groups where this kind of culture was cultivated by a CEO who enjoyed watching his direct reports try to out-shine each other. While this management style might appear to be effective at first, it really results in a dysfunctional team when it comes to effective institutional problem-solving and planning.

Fourth, a personal fear of truly open communication can paralyze many participants.  This emotion derives from a strong desire to avoid conflict or hostility, or from not wanting to end up looking uninformed, or even stupid.  The truth is that open communication clarifies issues, uncovers creative solutions, and identifies barriers to progress that can now be openly addressed.

All four of these reasons why retreats fail should  be addressed at the outset as a part of a general orientation to the day.  First, explain that the agenda came from surveying the concerns of participants.  Then, make sure everyone knows that the essential experts are there, or will be there to discuss specific issues.  And, finally, make sure everyone understands that all participants  are expected to speak their minds openly, and are promised immunity from all retribution later on.   On this matter: “What happens at the retreat, stays at the retreat.”