One of the key facilitator roles is to know how to design and manage effective meetings. First, sensitize yourself to the ingredients of an ineffective meeting:
___ | lack of clarity about the meeting goal | |
___ | a vague or nonexistent agenda | |
___ | no time limits on discussions | |
___ | no discernible process for working on important issues | |
___ | no one facilitating discussions | |
___ | people haven't done their homework | |
___ | discussions that go off track or spin in circles | |
___ | lack of closure to discussions before moving on | |
___ | people vehemently arguing points of view rather than debating ideas | |
___ | a few people dominating while others sit passively | |
___ | meetings that end without detailed action plans for agreed next steps | |
___ | absence of any process checking of the meeting as it unfolds | |
___ | no evaluation at the end |
At a bad meeting, there's no agenda. Because no one received advance warning about the focus of the meeting, no one comes prepared. The person running the meeting does not offer process tools for managing any of the discussions. He or she simply introduces topics and issues or gives updates of previous activities.
Since there's no discernable structure, conversations tend to float around. Individuals introduce side topics and dominant people hog the airwaves.
If and when a decision is made, the person who called the meeting may simply propose a solution which others may feel obliged to ratify.
Bad meetings often end with a few people getting what they want, while others feel that their time has largely been wasted.
By contrast, here are the ingredients shared by all effective meetings:
___ | a detailed agenda that spells out what will be discussed, the goal of the discussion, who is bringing that item forward, and an estimate of how long each item will take | |
___ | clear process notes that describe the tools and techniques that will be used | |
___ | assigned roles such as facilitator, chairperson, minute taker, and timekeeper | |
___ | a set of group norms created by the members and posted in the meeting room | |
___ | clarity about decision-making options to be used | |
___ | effective member behaviors | |
___ | periodic process checks | |
___ | clear conflict-management strategies | |
___ | a process that creates true closure | |
___ | detailed and clear minutes | |
___ | specific follow-up plans | |
___ | a post-meeting evaluation |
In an effective meeting, everyone knows why they're there. The meeting is well planned and some facilitates it from beginning to end. When decisions are being made, a process tool is provided so that the discussion stays focused and objective.
At a good meeting people exhibit effective behaviors and adhere to the rules of conduct set by the group. Should a conversation become heated, the facilitator quickly intervenes to restore effective communication. If the discussion goes off track, the new topic is quickly flagged and parked.
Great meetings always end with detailed next steps. That way everyone is clear about the expected outcomes and their role in implementation.
Meetings that work leave people feeling energized. They feel that their ideas have been heard and that they had input to the decisions that were made. They never feel that the meeting has wasted their valuable time.
In the table that follows are some of the symptoms of dysfunctional meetings and prescriptions for their cure. These are, of course, easier to identify than to fix, but if you can help team members become aware of their patterns, they can begin to resolve them.
SYMPTOMS | CURES |
As each person finishes speaking, the next person starts a new topic. There is no building on ideas, thus no continuity of discussion. | Have each person acknowledge the comments of the last speaker. Make it a rule to finish a point before moving forward. |
People argue their views, trying to convince others that they're right rather than understanding either the issue or anyone else's input. There is no listening. | Train members to paraphrase what is said in response to their points. Use the flip chart to record all sides of an issue. Get everyone to understand these differing views. |
As soon as a problem is mentioned, someone announces that he or she understands the problem. A solution is very quickly proposed and the discussion moves to another topic. | Use a systematic approach to bring structure to discussions. Become thorough in solving problems. Avoid jumping to obvious solutions. |
Whenever someone disagrees with a group decision, the dissenting view is ignored. | Develop an ear for dissenting views and make sure they are heard. Have someone else paraphrase the dissenting opinion. |
The group uses brainstorming and voting to make most decisions. | Pre-plan meeting processes so other tools are on hand, and then use them. |
Conversations often go nowhere for extended periods. In frustration the group moves on to a new topic without closure. | Set time limits on each discussion and periodically evaluate how it's going. Use summaries to achieve closure. |
People often speak in an emotional tone of voice. Sometimes they even say things to others that are quite personal. | Have people stop and rephrase their comments so there are no distracting personal innuendoes. |
People use side-chats to share their thoughts. | Encourage honesty by valuing all input. Draw side-chatterers back to group conversation. |
Group members don't notice they've become sidetracked on an issue until they've been off topic for quite a while. | Call a time-out or have some other signal to flag off-track conversations. Decide whether you want to digress or park the particular issue. |
The extroverts, or those with power, do most of the talking. Some people say little at most meetings. | Use round-robins to obtain input. Call on members by name. Use idea slips to get written comments from everyone. |
No one pays attention to body language or notices that some people have tuned out or even seem agitated. | Make perception checks and ask people to express their feelings. |
There is no closure to most topics. Little action takes place between meetings. | Stress closure. Reach a clear decision and record it. Have an action-planning form handy. Bring actions forward at the next meeting. |
There is no after-meeting evaluation. People debrief in their offices. | Do a meeting evaluation and discuss the results before the next meeting. Post any new rules or improvement ideas. |
Each meeting must have an agenda that's been developed ahead of time and ratified by the members of the team. By having the agenda in advance of the meeting, members can do their homework and come prepared to make decisions.
Agendas should include:
If the agenda can't be designed in advance for whatever reason, then the first order of business at the meeting should be agenda building. In this facilitated discussion, members design the agenda for that day's session.
Most of the books that have been written on meetings do not mention process notes, largely because these books are geared toward meetings that will be chaired rather than facilitated.
When a meeting is facilitated, there must be detailed process notes for each agenda item. These notes specify how the discussion will be facilitated. They specify the tools to be used and how participation will be managed.
In the following sample agenda, we've added process notes to illustrate their important role. While some facilitators keep these design notes to themselves, it's often a good idea to openly share the process notes with the group.
(Examples of detailed process notes can be found in Chapter Ten.)
Name of group: | Customer Fulfillment Team |
Members: | Jane, Muhammed, Jacques, Elaine, Carl, Fred, Diane, Joe |
Meeting details: | Monday, June 12, 2005, 11:00 to 1:00 (Brown Bag Lunch), Conference Room C |
WHAT AND WHY* | HOW (PROCESS NOTES) |
Warm-up (10 min) Joe; create focus |
|
Review agenda and norms (5 min) Joe; set context |
|
Bring forward action items (25 min) all members; implementation monitoring |
|
Focus group updates (20 min) Jacques and Diane; identify areas for improvement |
|
Prioritization of customer issues (20 min) Joe; set priorities |
|
Problem solving of priority issues (30 min) entire group; create improvement plans |
|
Next-step planning and agenda building (10 min) Joe; ensure closure and design next session |
|
Exit survey (10 min) Joe; check meeting effectiveness |
|
*Note: Times given above are totally speculative and are only included for illustration purposes. |
Effective meetings require people to play defined roles, such as those described below.
Chairperson: runs the meeting according to defined rules, but also offers opinions and engages in the discussion if he or she chooses. The chairperson has traditionally not been neutral. Most often, the chairperson of any meeting is the official leader, who plays an active role as both decision-maker and opinion leader.
Facilitator: designs the methodology for the meeting, manages participation, offers useful tools, helps the group determine its needs, keeps things on track, and periodically checks on how things are going. A facilitator doesn't influence what is being discussed, but instead focuses on how issues are being discussed. A facilitator is a procedural expert who is there to help and support the group's effectiveness.
Minute taker: takes brief, accurate notes of what's discussed and the decisions made. Also responsible for incorporating any notes on flip charts. Most often, minute-taking responsibilities are rotated among the regular members of a work group. However, for special meetings or if resources allow, this role can be assigned to a neutral outsider.
Timekeeper: a rotating role in which someone keeps track of the time and reminds the group about milestones periodically. Not a license to be autocratic or shut down important discussions if they're running over. The use of an automatic timer will allow the timekeeper to participate in the discussion.
Scribe: a group member who volunteers to help the facilitator by recording group comments on a flip chart. Some facilitators are more comfortable asking others to make notes on the flip chart while they facilitate. This has the benefit of freeing the facilitator from the distraction of writing, but adds its own complications. The scribe may start facilitating or may not take accurate notes. Since having a scribe takes an additional person out of the discussion, it is an impractical strategy for small groups. It is a standard practice for facilitators to make their own notes. If a scribe is used, clarifying questions should always be channeled through the facilitator, instead of the scribe interacting directly with the members.
Chairing and facilitating are two, distinct meeting-management roles. Each has its purpose and place.
Chairing is most useful at the start of a meeting in order to review past minutes, share information, and manage a round-robin report-back by members.
Chairing traditionally relies on the use of pre-published rules of order.
Since chairs are not neutral, their major drawback is that they tend to influence decisions and concentrate power. It's not uncommon for a strong chairperson to make final decisions on important items.
A consequence of this decision mode is that the chair “owns” the outcome. There's also little emphasis on using process tools by traditional chairpersons.
Facilitating is designed to foster the full and equal participation of all members for items on which their input is needed. Because facilitators are neutral, they empower members. They rely on consensus and collaboration to reach important decisions. This results in decisions for which the whole group feels it has ownership.
Facilitation creates rules from within the group, rather than imposing rules from a book. Facilitation is also associated with a rich array of tools and techniques designed to create synergy and obtain better ideas.
A very common role arrangement is to have a meeting leader who uses a chairperson approach to start the meeting and review the agenda, take care of the housekeeping and information-sharing portions of the session, and then switch to facilitation in order to obtain input on specific topics.
All good facilitators should know when and how to act as effective chairpersons. Conversely, it would be ideal if all chairpersons were also skilled facilitators, who could switch roles whenever it was desirable to get participation and ownership.
With advance planning, these roles don't need to conflict. The keys are to remember that each has its place and to be clear about which approach is being used in which situations.
In Summary
Chair when you want to: | Facilitate when you want to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make sure that the group has clear norms for behavior and that those norms are created by the group. Help the group tailor its norms to meet the demands of particular meetings by engaging members in setting targeted norms if they are needed. (Refer to the conflict management norms on pages 137 and 138.)
Make sure that everyone is part of the discussion, that structure exists for each item, that there's effective use of decision-making tools, and that closure is achieved for all items.
Facilitators are responsible for ensuring that members know and exhibit effective group behaviors. If members lack group skills, facilitators need to conduct simple training exercises, such as those, suggested on pages 92 to 95 in Chapter Six.
Process checking is a technique to use during meetings to keep things on track. This involves stopping the discussion periodically to redirect member attention to how the meeting is going. The purpose of this shift in focus is to engage members in a quick review in order to identify needed improvements.
There are four elements in process checking:
One of the most common challenges in meetings is when the wheels start spinning and the discussion gets stuck. Getting stuck is a cue to conduct a process check. This intervention goes something like this:
Although process checks are usually done verbally, they can also be conducted in the form of a survey posted on a flip chart. Members are invited to anonymously rate how the meeting is going, usually as they leave the room for a break. When members return, they are asked to interpret the survey results and brainstorm ideas for improving the remainder of the session. All practical suggestions are implemented.
Never let a group leave a meeting without clear next steps in place. This means defining what will be done, by whom, and when. These action plans need to be brought forward at all subsequent meetings to make sure that the group is following through on commitments.
Effective groups make it a habit of routinely evaluating meeting effectiveness.
There are three basic ways to evaluate a meeting:
Output—To what extent did we achieve what we needed to?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Poor | Fair | Satisfactory | Good | Excellent |
Organization—How effective was the meeting structure?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Poor | Fair | Satisfactory | Good | Excellent |
Use of Time—How well did we use our time?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Poor | Fair | Satisfactory | Good | Excellent |
Participation—How well did we do on making sure everyone was involved equally?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Poor | Fair | Satisfactory | Good | Excellent |
Decision Making—How well-thought-out were our decisions?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Poor | Fair | Satisfactory | Good | Excellent |
Action Plans—How clear and doable are our action plans?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Poor | Fair | Satisfactory | Good | Excellent |
Implement the next survey to create impetus for improving meetings.
Rate the characteristics of your meetings by circling the appropriate number on each scale to represent your evaluation. Remain anonymous. Return the survey to your group facilitator for review at a future meeting.
Does everyone come prepared and ready to make decisions?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
We are often unprepared | We are always well prepared |
Are agendas circulated to all members in advance of the meeting?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Agendas are rarely circulated in advance | Agendas are always circulated in advance |
Is there a quiet place for the meeting, with ample space and support materials?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
The meeting place is not well suited | The meeting place is excellent |
Are objectives and expected outcomes clearly set out for each agenda item?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Objectives and outcomes are never clear | Objectives and outcomes are always clear |
Do meetings start/end on time?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Meetings hardly ever start/end on time | Meetings always start/end on time |
Are time limits set for each agenda item?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
We do not set time limits | Time limits are always set for each item |
Are roles such as timekeeper, scribe, and facilitator clearly defined?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Roles are not clarified | Roles are always clearly defined |
Are action items from the previous meeting(s) brought forward?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Items are seldom brought forward | Previous items are always brought forward |
Is there clarity before each topic as to how that item will be managed?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
There is rarely any structured process | There is always a structured process |
Are meetings being disrupted due to people leaving, pagers, phones, etc.?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
There are constant interruptions | We control interruptions |
Are all members fully engaged and taking responsibility for follow-up?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
People hold back and don't take ownership | Everyone offers ideas and takes action |
Do members practice active listening?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
We don't listen closely to each other | Members listen actively |
Are differences of opinion suppressed, or is conflict effectively used?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
We tend to argue emotionally | We debate objectively |
Does the group generally make high-quality decisions?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
We tend to make low-quality decisions | We tend to make high-quality decisions |
Does one person make all the decisions, or is there a sharing of authority?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
A few people make most decisions | Decision making is shared |
How would you rate the pace of your meetings?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Poor | Excellent |
Do meetings stay on track and follow the agenda?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Meetings usually stray off track | Meetings usually stay on track |
Are quality minutes kept and circulated?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
No, they're not | Yes, they are |
Do we work hard to make collaborative decisions that we can all live with?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
We abandon consensus too early | We work hard to reach consensus |
Do we effectively end topics before moving on to new ones?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
We move on without closure | We close each topic before moving on |
Is there timely, effective follow-up to commitments made at meetings?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
We tend not to follow up | There is consistent follow-up |
Note: Use the survey-feedback process described in Chapter Ten to engage participants in assessing the results of the Meeting Effectiveness Survey in order to identify meeting improvement strategies.
There is an ever-growing trend toward meetings that take place over the phone or the Internet. In the next few years this trend is going to increase as more and more new kinds of technology become available. Hopefully, more of these virtual meetings will feature a visual component to make them feel less disconnected and more interactive.
First, let's look at some of the special challenges of virtual meetings:
One of the most important guidelines for all virtual meetings is to design them to include only those things that need real-time interaction. Too many hours of valuable work time are wasted if people are reporting in and sharing updates that could have been posted before the call on a shared Internet bulletin board.
Use calls to become acquainted, discuss problems, jointly search for solutions, make decisions, ratify action plans, clarify work assignments, and so on.
Don't waste call time on reviewing notices, reading each other's reports and sharing routine updates, or anything else that can be done before the virtual meeting via email or on a shared site.
This means that the facilitator needs to send out pre-work and any notices that people need to read to prepare for the call. The call host also needs to clarify what needs to be done before the session and what will be handled at the session.
As with any face-to-face meeting, virtual meetings need an agenda that is circulated ahead of time and that specifically describes the objectives and expected outcomes of the meeting. The guidelines for developing an effective meeting agenda complete with process notes can be found earlier in this chapter.
While facilitation was created for face-to-face meetings, many key elements can be borrowed from the facilitator tool kit to help make distance meetings more effective.
The facilitation techniques that most improve virtual meetings are many of the same ones that work in a face-to-face meeting: providing a clear purpose, describing the process, conducting a warm-up exercise, making interventions, calling on people by name, conducting periodic process checks, paraphrasing key ideas, offering periodic summaries, ensuring that key items have closure, and providing clear action steps. Here is how you can use these strategies to improve any virtual meeting:
To help you have more effective virtual meetings, refer to the virtual agendas that are part of each structured conversation in Chapter Eleven.