V Preparing For and Running Meetings
Effective and productive meetings generally do not happen simply by chance. Planning is necessary so that there is a place and time set aside, the appropriate participants have been invited and the agenda has been set. In addition to those details, however, some principles have been suggested which would seem to set a helpful tone for productive meetings. (Source: The Business Meetings Sourcebook: A practical guide to better meetings and shared decision making, by Eli Mina)
Guiding principles for meetings and consensus building:
• A healthy meeting may be impossible to achieve if the organization itself is not healthy.
• The success of a meeting is ultimately measured by the quality of the decisions made in it.
• The process of reaching a collective decision is just as important as the decision itself.
• In a good meeting everyone arrives at the same destination at the same time, as proactive and enthusiastic partners, not as reluctant neighbours.
• Your challenge in a meeting is to create the right balance between inclusiveness and efficiency.
• Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to a misunderstanding or systemic problem.
• To truly gain control, a leader must know how to share control and build partnerships.
• It is much easier to be a critic and oppose something than to be a creator and propose a better alternative.
• We were given two ears and one mouth, so we could listen at least twice as much as we speak.
• Diversity of opinions is something to celebrate. An opposing view or a piece of criticism should not be seen as a threat, but as another piece of the bigger truth.
Making decisions
Given the complex nature of the issues surrounding the mandate of the SPC to deliver a school improvement plan to the Board, and in keeping with the collaborative culture that the District seeks to foster, Richmond School Planning Councils shall operate by consensus.
One view describes consensus decision making in the following way (Source: Eli Mina, The Complete Handbook of Business Meetings):
Advantages of consensus decision making
Broad support for an initiative is generated.
The decisions reflect a broad spectrum of views and thus are more likely to endure.
Decisions are viewed as legitimate and are less likely to be undermined.
Disadvantages of consensus decision making
Time consuming, slow, tedious.
Risk of becoming subjected to the “tyranny of the minority” (stubborn holdouts).
Risk of a proposal being so diluted (to accommodate all interests) that it becomes meaningless.
Appropriate situations for consensus decision making
Complex or controversial initiatives where time is available and where it is important to get much more than a simple majority to endorse and support the implementation of an initiative.
Dialogue, Discussion and Debate
The discussions that are held by School Planning Councils, Parent Advisory Councils and school staffs, to develop School Performance Plans will involve people with many different experiences and points of view. In order for the process to be successful, it must include all those diverse perspectives and see the diversity, not as a problem, but as a source of insight and creative energy that contributes to the development of goals that are valued by all concerned and can be implemented effectively.
This complex process will benefit from a common focus on what is to be done and how it can best be achieved. Ultimately that requires the development of trust and mutual regard amongst those involved. One of the important factors in achieving that kind of atmosphere includes a perspective on the nature of the conversation. Daniel Yankelovich (The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation, 1999) distinguishes dialogue from discussion and debate. He suggests that dialogue is actually a unique form of conversation in which the goal is to develop new understanding that no single participant had previously, and to use the diverse points of view in the group to develop understandings that any one participant probably could not have developed on his or her own.
Sometimes this happens by one person contributing an idea that others accept, but often it involves new ideas emerging during the conversation. Yankelovich suggests that a dialogue is distinguished by three key features (pp. 43-46):
• Equality and the absence of coercive influences: In dialogue all participants must be treated as equals. Outside the context of the dialogue there may be large status differences, but in the dialogue itself, equality must reign. In genuine dialogue there is no arm-twisting, no pulling of rank and no coercive influences of any sort, whether overt or indirect.
• Listening with empathy: The gift of empathy - the ability to think someone else’s thoughts and feel someone else’s feelings - is indispensable to dialogue. Discussion is more common than dialogue because people find it easier to express their opinions and bat their ideas back and forth with others, than to take the time and have the patience to respond empathetically to opinions with which they do not agree or that they find uncongenial. Dialogue, however, requires that everyone do just that.
• Bringing assumptions into the open: In dialogue participants are encouraged to examine their own assumptions and those of others, and to respond to those assumptions with curiosity rather than judgment. Often it is difficult for participants to recognize that what they think is based on assumptions because those assumptions are so familiar to them that they seem like “common sense” and not assumptions at all. When they hear others’ assumptions that are different from their own it would be easy to see the difference as a challenge rather than an interesting insight. Dialogue requires that judgment be suspended to allow for open-minded inquiry.
Dialogue is an uncommon skill that takes time, energy and commitment to develop. It is not an efficient process because it takes more time than the familiar process of discussion/decision, but it is a highly effective process for discovering meanings and building consensus. Taking the time for dialogue prevents difficulties in the implementation of decisions by making sure that those decisions are wise, well understood and supported by all participants.
Debate |
Dialogue |
Assuming that there is one “true” and complete way of looking at things that must be discovered through the rational contest of ideas. |
Assuming that there are many valid, if partial, views and that together a group can develop a better, although still imperfect, view than any one alone. |
Combative: participants attempt to find “the truth” by searching for flaws in the argument of others. |
Collaborative: Participants work together toward a common understanding by trying to understand new perspectives. |
About winning your point. |
About exploring common ground.
|
Listening to find flaws and find counter arguments |
Listening to understand, find meaning and agreement. |
Defending assumptions as truth. |
Revealing assumptions for reevaluation.
|
Critiquing others’ positions. |
Reexamining all positions.
|
Defending one’s own views against those of others. |
Admitting that others’ thinking can improve on one’s own. |
Searching for flaws and weaknesses in other positions. |
Searching for strength and value in others’ positions. |
Making decision by bringing debate to an end through voting. |
Making decisions by consensus while keeping questions open for reconsideration in the future. |
Adapted from The Magic of Dialogue by Daniel Yankelovich
As change rather than stability becomes primary, people can no longer assume that they have a sufficiently shared set of assumptions, perceptions, meanings and beliefs… What is most important is the continuing process of dialogue by which a wide range of people construct shared mental maps within which they can devise innovative solutions to particular problems … Dialogue precedes decision-making, but the shared frameworks, language and expectations that result can make subsequent negotiation and decision-making both more coherent and productive. We need to make room for real dialogue at the front end of many of our decision-making processes, and do so in a more explicit and systematic way … Institutions, structures and roles need to be shaped and reshaped as a result of a continuous process
of dialogue and learning.”
| 
