Why Your PLC Meetings Might Suck (And Where to Go From There)
Sometimes we just need to say it - the team meetings suck.
Think about your team (it doesn’t have to be a Professional Learning Community, of course). How much of the list below resonates?
I feel like it’s a waste of time.
I’m not sure what the purpose of the meeting is.
We talk but never seem to actually go anywhere.
There’s little to no disagreement or back-and-forth on ideas (maybe it doesn’t feel worth the energy, or maybe I’m afraid my opinion will be used against me).
There’s a lot of disagreement, but it’s hostile and feels personal.
Maybe team members will agree in the moment, but there’s no deep buy-in.
Members complain with others after the meeting.
We don’t achieve anything meaningful.
Reason 1: A Lack of Psychological Safety
What does witnessing a scary collision and a veiled threat from your principal have in common? How your brain responds. Our brain’s smoke detector, the amygdala, puts our system on high alert when a threat is detected. “While that fight-or-flight reaction may save us in life-or-death situations, it handicaps the strategic thinking needed in today’s workplace” says Laura Delizonna in the Harvard Business Review.
When team members believe they can make mistakes, take moderate risks, and speak their mind freely, you have an environment with psychological safety. Without this foundation, team members will spend much energy subconsciously protecting themselves from harm, and be unable to fully access higher brain functions. It’s likely that meetings will feel dull and stagnant at best, and hostile at worst.
Reason 2: The Culture Values Seeming Over Being
“Seeming” is about optics, saying the right things, or fronting a certain way. When commitment to seeming is strong, it can be hard to recognize in the moment, but will be revealed eventually as underlying issues persist and nothing of substance changes. Other times, however, no one even tries to hide it. For example, being told that a document or exercise is for “compliance” can be shorthand for “I know this doesn’t matter or serve a good purpose, but it makes things look good and so we have to do it.”
With pressure to appear a certain way, I think that most teachers can deliver for a time. But what happens if it persists?
The strong moral and ethical compass that guided teachers into the field in the first place will guide them right out.
The pressure to seem responsive to data, trauma informed, or committed to anti-racist teaching without the time, support, and resources to actually be those things is enough to make great teachers look for another position (if not another profession) that will allow them to live into being responsive to data, trauma-informed, or anti-racist.
And if educators do not actually leave teaching because of stigma, finances, or other barriers, then they might “escape” by shutting down, say, in the PLC meetings where this pressure is strongly felt.
Reason 3: Trust Isn’t Built
Trust is the foundation. For there to be trust, I have to know that I can show up, talented and imperfect, with confidence that my team will make generous assumptions about my mistakes, ask for help when they need it, and that we will honor each other’s boundaries and capacity.
If that doesn’t sound like your team, then you are dealing with a crack (or gaping hole) in the foundation of trust.
“But why will PLC suck without trust? Can’t we just focus on the work?”
Patrick Lencioni offers a framework for how teams achieve results. Trust is essential, it’s the base from which everything else is supported. He says that without trust, teams will have artificial harmony. If members cannot trust that their voice, ideas, and mistakes will be safe in the hands of their team, then the team will be unable to have the healthy, constructive dialogue and conflict that leads to true buy-in.
So, sure, you can focus on the work without trust - I’ve been on many teams that do. But the meetings were void of authenticity, full of confusion, and our work went nowhere.
“Where Do I Go From Here?”
If you are on a dysfunctional team but are not the leader, it may be hard to see how you can help change course. Here are a few thoughts offered by The Seattle School’s Certificate in Resilient Service:
You cannot change anyone but yourself. Start here, acknowledging to yourself that while you have influence, you do not have control. The ability to change a team is not yours alone to bear, for that would mean robbing your team members of their own agency.
Encourage reflection. A person can help move a group away from fight-or-flight mode and towards safety through encouraging and inviting reflection.
Be willing to risk vulnerability. If I want more trust to exist on my team, I need to be willing to risk being vulnerable in an appropriate measure.
Be a container, not a conductor, of anxiety. Working on your own self-regulation in high stress times can impact the way anxiety moves throughout your team.
To end, one conviction I hold is this: healthy teams can be created.
For anyone needing an imagination for what a thriving team could look and feel like, consider:
My team accomplishes important work.
I feel comfortable bringing up new ideas with my teammates.
There is follow-through when a teammate says they will do something.
There is no “meeting after the meeting,” team members say what they actually think and get clarification during the meeting itself.
There is excitement shared after meetings about what is coming next.
It’s noticeable if a team member is absent or having an “off” day.
Whether or not an official facilitator is present, we know what to work on during meeting time.
We disagree and debate so that when we land on a solution we feel confident all the possibilities were explored.
It feels like my team and I have the same end-goals in mind.
Healthy, well-functioning teams are fostered when everyone at the table is committed to hard, intentional, and vulnerable work. They are rare in education at the moment, and they are possible.
