I have had the same experience when I was not fully prepared, Daniel. I find that I actually look forward to the meeting and offer a much higher level of enthusiasm when I am well prepared. When I am not, or I am unsure of how the meeting will go, not so much. Preparation is key to a successful meeting I think, regardless of whether you are a member or a participant.
Carlos,
During my experience with doing teacher negotiations we had large groups but there were very well defined rules of engagement during the process. It sllowed for all concerned to express themselves So much on what we do and how successful it can be depends on the purpose and expected outcomes to well spelled out.
I find that larger meetings may be better for brain storming ideas but doesnt work as well if you are looking for actual solutions.
Joseph,
People often have their own agenda but can communicate it in a professional manner. The real problem employees are the one's with an agenda and are obnoxious about their personal opinions. This is not allowed or tolerated. Again, this needs to be addressed before the meeting begins with the rules of the communication in the meeting.
Joseph,
We all need to model appropriate behaviour and expect the same from all involved. As a leader there would be zero tolerance for unacceptable behaviour of any participants. Great brainstorming sessions can be destroyed by a sabatour.
The best meetings I ever attended were held by a CEO in a company that was struggling. He had an agenda, and each department was to report progress on their action plans. If someone was not prepared, he moved on and the member was embarrassed. If someone mentioned an issue that was causing a roadblock, he addressed it then and there. Of course, these meetings were effective because he was the CEO (and a forceful one at that). He was clear in publishing the agenda and laying out the ground rules. Believe me, no one wanted to be embarrassed at those meetings.
The worst meetings were ones I tried to hold when someone would come to the meeting with their own agenda, interrupting the flow by bringing up issues not related to the objectives of the meeting. When I refused to acknowledge their issues, they would become emotional, walk out, have something to say about my ancestry, and slam the door. Needless to say, we failed to accomplish all objectives when key people refuse to participate.
I think you are right here. Eighteen seems like a lot. I think, however, it depends on the creativity of the minds present. If you have, say, six highly creative people, you might get more done that with 18 who are less so. It's important that everyone gets to give input and share their ideas. The more present, the higher probability that someone will ridicule or criticize someone's idea. Once this happens, participants tend to shut down, fearing more ridicule. A good moderator, or leader, can help to overcome this by drawing out the reticent and toning down the dominant, but it can be difficult.
When a meeting is planned and executed efficiently the participants leave with a feeling of accomplishment. They may not be happy with the outcome, but if consensus was achieved, they know that their input was recognized and respected.
Awry...I was a visitor in one yesterday. Interestingly, this was a formal governmental-type meeting. The meeting started 15 minutes late. The initial agenda items, for which I attended, were "forgotten" from the final agenda created just prior to the meeting. As a result of the eliminated agenda items, the assigned times for "guest participants" to speak were requested earlier than scheduled. Needless to say, a tremendous amount of "back-peddling" was used in an attempt to diminish frustration and prevent anger from leaving the room. The level of frustration was lowered; however, one "guest speaker" left the room quite angry.
Renee,
The make up of a meeting is important to the outcomes of a meeting. People who need to know the information should be present. I have chaired many boards over the years an d have found as the leader set ground rules for discussions. They need to be on topic and succinct. In formal meetings I use Robert's Rules of Order. Informal meetings I conduct with rules of conduct for everyone. I make it clear this for each person to express themselves but with information towards the topic. You will find in the interest of time you will have shorter and more productive meetings.
Try it, let me know how it goes.
Keeping people on task is highly important and affective. There should be times denoted with topics of discussion. This way control is in the hands of the administrator by saying let's move on to the next topic to keep the flow of the meeting on task. People expect this if it's laid out in advance and are receptive to moving on.
Smaller meetings seem to work better, yet I've had to schedule large meetings depending on the occasion. For the most part they've worked well if the agenda is stated clearly in advance. On some occasions people have gotten side tracked into their own side debates. in these instances, asking them to resolve the issues after the meeting seemed to work. If it got too heated, asking them to meet together in my office afterwards also seemed to work. Again, holding smaller meetings is ideal, but it can't always go that way.
Jon,
Brain storming is an art. There are times when they become out of control if not handeled correctly.I was part of a brain storming group with teacher negotiations once where there were about 16 people involved. The person facilitating had some requirements we followed. As we went around the room each person would only talk when they had something to contribute. There were timelimits on people to speak and people could pass. After exhausting the suggestions there was a break. After returning Comments would be called upon when someone would ask to be acknowledged. The next meeting there were four teams created with the suggestions and issues given to each team. Solutions were discussed by each team for reporting.
I think you see the process is very organized with full capability for everyone to become involved.
I was really surprised that the information in this course stated that in a brainstorming session 18 people or less should be included. I have been involved in a lot of these sessions and I have noted that it can get very disruptive with that many people. It seems to have worked better, at least for my meetings when we have included fewer people no more than six during the session then presented the information to the rest of the team. I plan on trying again with more people and see how it works using some of the methods to control the flow of the meeting.
Comfort will come with time. Your opinion and others is important. Not everyone needs to totally agree but it does prepare you for implementing any new innovation into the scheme of change.
Preparation is extremely important. Along with your agenda the goal of the meeting should be communicated. This gives a road with a curb to keep everyone on track.
You're so right...knowing my audience goes back to having emotional intelligence and how to read people. I am learning how non-verbal cues and demeanor and learning about the audience is extremely critical for how to know what to say and when to say it....especially when working with upper level managers and executives. I have learned that it's okay to be conversational and yet short and concise. Now it's just practicing to get comfortable with it.
Thanks for a great course!
I have had some great meetings, and have had some doozies.
The great meetings went well when I was fully prepared to handle all types of questions and knew my material inside and out, and I displayed the confidence and collectness throughout the meeting.
The doozies happened when I was rushed, under prepared, and was not the SME for the topic that I had to deliver the information on during the meeting. I am learning more and more how important it is to bring the SME with me, study my agenda and know my business. When you know what you are doing, people are more at ease, they give you trust, and the tone of the meetings is much more relaxed and the flow just happens.
Good practices. People appreciate it when you can keep people on task. Taking discussion off line is good when it impedes progress of a meeting.
Most of the time my meetings are at the same location and same time, This helps members to be on time and pre for the meeting. I send out the agenda ASAP so members are aware of the meeting purpose.
When I have meetings go awry it is usually because members extend a topic due to strong different opinions. Depending on how far apart the members are I usually end the dicussion and stick to the time line, and we can table it until our next meeting or take it off line.
Your agenda always reflects what kind of meeting your stakeholders can expect. If there are individuals that don't need to stay for the entire meeting those agenda items often should be put in the front end of the meeting. This would allow as you have appropriatel done giving permission for these individuals to leave the meeting.
Know your audience and what they need to know.
