Do you ever notice how meetings that begin as a discussion about a particular issue, quickly devolve into a debate about the right process for discussing the issue. Typically, at the end of such meetings, there is no consensus on a process, or more importantly, a solution for fixing the issue.

Sometimes this happens overtly – someone stops the discussion to advocate for their favorite tool or model. More often it happens implicitly. People answer the main question about what needs to be done, with further statements about how to figure out what needs to be done. For example, if the question were, “How can we best meet our customer’s needs?” a reply might be, “We need to identify their top three buyer values.” That sounds Ike a way forward. A clear plan. But, in reality it just prolongs the issue. Of course you need to figure out the three buyer values. That’s the point of the meeting. You should be talking about what those are.

A good leader isn’t constrained by the process. He or she knows what needs to be done to improve the business. So why doesn’t this happen? In the organizations in which I’ve worked, I’ve seen three main drivers:

1. A risk averse culture – Process is safe. Content is risky. Opinions demonstrate what a person knows (or doesn’t know).
2. Lack of understanding of the business – Discussing process requires no understanding of the business. It’s an easy way to “contribute”. Giving an opinion about what needs to be done requires both understanding and having put in some thought on how the business works. For many leaders, getting a deep understanding of their business is sacrificed for managing the tactical day to day details of their unit.
3. A focus on activity versus outcome – Many business cultures still reward work rather than results. Suggesting a process creates the illusion of progress. It can be documented, planned, and tracked. Specifying a solution can seem ambiguous. People might not see how to implement the solution. The person proposing the solution might not be able to lay out the specific steps and deliverables. It might be criticized as not being “pragmatic”.

All three of these are individual and organizational leadership issues. They require greater attention to who is being put into leadership roles and for what reason. People who are promoted based on their ability to do tactical things and think in tactical ways, will probably continue to do tactical things and think in tactical ways, just at a higher level. Leaders are those people who know how to bring content and context to a problem to move things forward. In the interim, the best way to improve the quality of meetings is to start inviting people who can bring content, regardless of their role or level.

Noel Tichy recommends that leaders develop a “teachable point of view”, something for which they have a unique and worthwhile perspective to share. I think leaders should take that one step further. Good leaders should have a general point of view on all aspects of their business. Some of those might be worthy of becoming their teachable point of view. More importantly, good leaders need to bring that point of view to the table.

Leaders need to step up and focus on content. They should be able to share their vision, point of view, and opinion regardless of the context in which is was solicited.