Findings on the Continued Use of Action Item Ambiguity
The meeting ended with a clear action item. Nobody knows whose action it is.
FIELD NOTES Subject: Action Item Ambiguity Observation method: post-meeting tracking
Tuesday, 11:47 AM
The meeting concludes. The meeting notes list three action items. The first: "Follow up with the vendor before end of week." The meeting had six attendees.
The action item contains no name.
Attendee A believes the action item belongs to Attendee B, who raised the vendor issue. Attendee B believes the action item belongs to Attendee A, who is the project lead. Attendees C, D, and E each privately conclude that the item belongs to someone more senior than themselves. Attendee F did not look at the notes.
Wednesday, 9:30 AM
An email is sent to "the team" asking for an update on the vendor item. The email is sent by Attendee A. It is addressed to the group, not to a person.
Attendee B reads the email and waits to see if someone else responds. Attendees C, D, and E read the email and wait to see if someone more senior responds. Attendee F has not yet opened Tuesday's meeting notes.
Wednesday, 3:00 PM
No response has been received to the email. A second email is sent, this one with the subject line "Vendor Follow-Up (Urgent?)." The question mark is not explained.
Thursday, 10:15 AM
A brief check-in call is scheduled to "align on the vendor situation." Six people attend. Fourteen minutes are spent discussing who was supposed to follow up. A new action item is generated: "Clarify ownership of vendor relationship and assign a clear point person."
The new action item is assigned to the group.
Finding
The organization eventually needs a meeting to decide whether the ritual itself should continue. In this case, the meeting was needed to address an item generated by the previous meeting, which generated a new item of similar ownership ambiguity.
The vendor has not been contacted.
The vendor sent a follow-up email on Wednesday morning. It is in Attendee A's inbox.
Attendee A has not yet replied, because doing so would establish ownership.