Imagine a doctor rolling a patient into surgery saying, 'If I didn't have to operate on people, I'd like my job a lot more.' Or LeBron James telling a reporter, 'If it weren't for the games and the practices, I'd really enjoy being an NBA player.' Ridiculous, right?

Now imagine an executive saying, 'If I didn't have to go to meetings, I'd like my job a lot more.' Of course, I've heard this many times from the senior executives I've consulted to in my career. At first glance, it seems understandable, even humorous. But in reality, there is something very wrong about it.

The truth is, meetings should be the most important central activity in the life of the leader in most organizations. Meetings, for instance, are where generals decide whether to go to war, where executives decide how to deal with a changing market, and where mothers and fathers decide what to do about a family crisis.

But most meetings are run terribly. Leaders too often fail to entertain conflict, create relevant agendas, and squash show-and-tell presentations and lengthy department-by-department reporting that puts people to sleep.

The biggest problem with meetings, though, is that they so often mix tactical and strategic topics in the same conversation. A good way to understand this problem is to think about how it plagues us in our homes.

My wife and I often have our 'meetings' in the morning when we're getting ready for our day. Our conversation goes something like this: 'Who's picking the kids up from school? Do you think we should try to have another baby? What are we going to do about dinner tonight? Where should be go on vacation this year?' We leave having no idea what we accomplished, wondering if we were just brainstorming, making decisions or thinking out loud.

The same thing happens during so many of the executive staff meetings I've observed. Leaders shift the topic of conversation from extremely tactical issues like closing a sale, to a long-term topic like how to position the company for new competition, to more intermediate topics like how much to invest in research and development over the next eighteen months.

The thing is, even the most intelligent human beings cannot make the contextual shifts that are necessary to have all of these conversations in the same setting. And they certainly can't do so in a way that ensures that everyone in the room is on the same page. Some members of a team, either because of functional responsibility or personality, will take a conservative, protective view of an issue, while others will be more creative or daring. The meeting will drift back and forth until time has run out and everyone leaves frustrated that the most important topics weren't discussed and that no clear decisions have been made.

What leaders really need are different kinds of meetings shorter ones, perhaps, but separate nonetheless for tactical and strategic conversations. Clarifying the context of our meetings and keeping those different types of conversations in their proper places will give our meetings greater clarity and focus, which will go a long way toward eliminating the frustration and confusion that we've unnecessarily come to expect.

In fact, one client I worked with credits the change in their meetings to the turnaround of their organization. Back in 2006, a healthcare company was having trouble gaining momentum in the industry. They started to use their Monday morning staff meetings as a 'Tactical Meeting,' focused entirely on tactics to execute their goals. When they were tempted to get off topic and wrestle a big strategic issue, they scheduled a 'Strategic Meeting' for a later time.

If the strategic issue was critical, they would have the strategic meeting immediately after the tactical meeting. That way the entire team was already together to work through the issue right away. The key to their success was being disciplined enough to focus on one strategic issue at a time, rather than mixing it with a variety of other topics.

设想一下，一位医生将病人推进手术室时对他说：如果我不需要给病人做手术的话，我会更热爱我的工作。或者设想NBA骑士队的勒布朗·詹姆斯(LeBron James)对记者说，如果我不需要打比赛和训练，我真的会喜欢做一名NBA球员。听上去很荒唐，是不是？

现在再设想一下，一位公司高管说：如果我不需要开会，我会更喜爱我现在的工作。当然，在我从事咨询工作以来，我曾经多次听到前来咨询的公司高管这么说。乍听起来，这话很能理解，甚至还有点幽默。但实际上，这种想法实在是大谬不然。

实际上，在大多数组织机构中，会议应该是领导者工作中最重要的核心活动。将军们通过会议决定是否开战，公司管理者通过会议决定如何应对市场变化，父母们通过“会议”决定怎样度过家庭危机。

但大多数会议开得很糟糕。领导人经常做不到化解冲突、制定有效的日程，而是在会上塞进大量演示性的程序，或是让各部门一个接一个报告情况，直把人搞得昏昏欲睡。

不过，会议的最大问题是，人们经常将战术性话题和战略性话题放在一个会上讨论。要搞清楚这样做有什么不妥，可以看看我们在家庭里这么做会发生什么。

以我家为例。妻子和我在早晨准备开始一天生活的时候经常召开家庭“会议”。我们的谈话经常是这样的：今天谁到学校接孩子？你认为我们应该试试再要个孩子吗？今晚晚餐想怎么安排？今年该去哪里度假？诸如此类。谈话结束的时候，我们也不知道到底有什么成果，不知道我们是在玩“脑力激荡”、是在做决定还是只不过在“大声”思考。

在我旁听过的许多次管理人员会议上，情况也是如此。领导会冷不丁地转换话题，一会儿是结束促销之类的极其具体的事情，一会又跳到公司面对新竞争如何定位这样的长期话题，随后又转到介于两者之间的诸如未来18个月应该在研发上投入多少资金这样的事。

问题是，要在一次会议上讨论所有这些话题，即使是最聪明的人也难以完成必要的前后转换。而且他们可能做不到让在场的每个人都同时跟随主题推进。由于工作职责或个人性格的关系，有些人会在某个问题上持保守、求稳的看法，其他人则会比较有创意或比较激进。因此，会上会来回扯皮，直到时间耗尽，每个人都垂头丧气地发现，最重要的议题还没讨论，没有达成任何一项清晰的决定。

实际上，领导者们真正需要的是与此完全不同的会议：或许更简短、但要将具体战术性的话题和总体战略性的话题分开讨论。将会议的前后背景交待清楚、将不同性质的话题分在不同的会议场合讨论，这样就能使会议变得更清晰、重点更突出，从而有助于消除与会者事先未必能料到的挫折感和困惑感。

实际上，我的一家客户就把他们公司的转变归功于会议改革。早在2006年，一家保健公司感到在获得行业发展势头方面遇到了困难。他们于是将周一上午的员工会议变成“战术讨论会”，专门用来讨论实现目标的具体策略。当他们想转变话题讨论更重大的战略问题时，他们会在稍后的时间另外安排“战略讨论会”。

如果当时战略问题比较危急，他们会在战术讨论会之后立刻召开战略会议。这样一来，整个团队可以立刻投入战略话题。他们成功的关键是严格自律，坚持做到每次只关注一个战略性问题，而不是将各种话题囫囵地混在一起讨论。