Have you ever come out of the meeting wondering what was the outcome? We talked about a topic, we even prepared for it, the team had a great, passionate conversation, but now what?

Rhetorical question, of course. We all have, probably multiple times, been in this situation.

The issue is that even when we define the topic of a planned conversation, we often fail to define the desired outcome. And without that, we can’t even assess whether we reached our goal (obviously).

Kim Scott, the author of Radical Candor, suggests distinguishing between “Big Debate” and “Big Decision” meetings. Essentially these two major meetings have to be separate, with some time in between, for any truly big decisions. How should that work?

For the Big Debate, the purpose is to bring to the table everything relevant. Discuss the pros and cons, ensure the validity of the decision, develop options (often, if you have a yes/no decision in front of you, you are asking the wrong question). The mindset needs to be clear to the participants that we will not be reaching a decision here. We will be debating, so feel free to defend positions, but be open to exploring alternatives. No decision will be reached.

For the Big Decision, let’s make it clear that a decision needs to be made. We already brought all the relevant information forward, the deadline is looming and we need to work with what we have to make a choice here.

The key is to be upfront with the team on the purpose of a given meeting – debate or decision? Are we gathering data or are we committing to a path? This method helps to get the team in sync, and when practiced repeatedly makes us better at making the decisions. And using our time in the meetings in the most effective – and efficient – way.