Content is important in any business meeting. So is process.
While rules should not override the need for substantive progress, a modicum of process is necessary if a meeting is to reach any sort of meaningful conclusion. At a recent idea session I attended, everything started fine. The discussion was on point and participants were energetically engaged. Then a faction hijacked the proceedings. It was nothing mean or intentional. The topic just meandered to something largely unrelated to what we were there to discuss.
Whose fault was this unintended shift? One person and one person only -- the facilitator. Perhaps he thought the discussion had run its course. I did not sense that was the case since participants were still engaged in spirited on-topic conversation. Regardless, if matters veer off course, the facilitator owes it to everyone in that room to keep the discussion on track. It is not always easy to pull it back when a number of people change the topic and begin a lively, albeit superfluous, discussion. But everyone entered that room agreeing to adhere to an agenda. Changing the rules midstream is rude.
It is important to acknowledge that not everyone is cut out for the job. Assertiveness is required. I had some doubts from the start about the facilitator in question. His vocal volume made most of us strain to hear him, and his body language seemed distant at times. Hardly the picture of someone capable of taking charge if the situation demanded.
Most groups give too little thought to this crucial role. That's why successful organizations set forth some ground rules and expectations for those who are asked to facilitate. If they cannot or will not abide by the guidelines, fine. Don't take it personally. But do find someone else.
If you are involved in a meeting dedicated to talking about a certain subject, stick to it unless there is consensus that the discussion has outlived its usefulness and there is explicit agreement to move on to something else.
While rules should not override the need for substantive progress, a modicum of process is necessary if a meeting is to reach any sort of meaningful conclusion. At a recent idea session I attended, everything started fine. The discussion was on point and participants were energetically engaged. Then a faction hijacked the proceedings. It was nothing mean or intentional. The topic just meandered to something largely unrelated to what we were there to discuss.
Whose fault was this unintended shift? One person and one person only -- the facilitator. Perhaps he thought the discussion had run its course. I did not sense that was the case since participants were still engaged in spirited on-topic conversation. Regardless, if matters veer off course, the facilitator owes it to everyone in that room to keep the discussion on track. It is not always easy to pull it back when a number of people change the topic and begin a lively, albeit superfluous, discussion. But everyone entered that room agreeing to adhere to an agenda. Changing the rules midstream is rude.
It is important to acknowledge that not everyone is cut out for the job. Assertiveness is required. I had some doubts from the start about the facilitator in question. His vocal volume made most of us strain to hear him, and his body language seemed distant at times. Hardly the picture of someone capable of taking charge if the situation demanded.
Most groups give too little thought to this crucial role. That's why successful organizations set forth some ground rules and expectations for those who are asked to facilitate. If they cannot or will not abide by the guidelines, fine. Don't take it personally. But do find someone else.
If you are involved in a meeting dedicated to talking about a certain subject, stick to it unless there is consensus that the discussion has outlived its usefulness and there is explicit agreement to move on to something else.
Comments