RE: meeting dynamics | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Rob Sandelin (robsanmicrosoft.com) | |
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 94 13:09 CST |
vicky de monterey asked: >Please post some stats on >this for your active group. Tell me how much time per week feels like >enough, too much, too little.. and other thoughts about the dynamics of >meetings. Sharingwood typically meets 2-3 hours per month as a large group. This is sometimes enough, and sometimes it isn't, depending of course on what is on the agenda. Lately we have been meeting more to do programming for our second phase. The amount of meeting time is a continuing source of angst. Some don't want to meet at all, others want to meet enough to get good discussions and decisions. We set a limit that the general meeting is over by lunch time which is obeyed at the expense of the agenda. The general commitment to meetings is low by many in the group and this is somewhat a given due to the nature of our community. We have our land and homes already so there is much more sense of not having to push anything hard. We can get by with being more leisurely about getting things done, although this sometimes has resulted in things taking enormously long to accomplish or not being accomplished at all. Member time and energy is the limiting factor in much of what we can do. Committees meet as needed. Some committees meet 2-3 hours per week, others meet 1-2 hours per month, others meet 2-3 times a year. Many things get discussed and decided around the dinner table. Meeting dynamics is a big subject. We are small still, typically around 20 adults at a general meeting and this allows for a different dynamic than 35 or 50 adults would have. We use general meeting time for general announcements, reports on stuff happening in committees, discussion/brainstorming of ideas, decision making on proposals from committees or task forces, group bonding. I am in an odd position within my community in that I have been involved with an intentional communities networking organization for several years and have had the opportunity to watch and be a part of some extremely well facilitated consensus meetings. So I tend to be somewhat frustrated and cynical about our group meetings, especially what we call consensus. So discount this appropriately. General meetings rarely start on time and often the items at the end of the agenda get compressed or punted. In my observation and opinion quality consensus decision making is sometimes compromised by time constraints which hurry a decision before it is ready. We also often have very passive facilitation which is something we could use help with. Facilitation is not just running down the items on the agenda. Other dynamics come from the individuals involved. Sometimes a minority of the members do a majority of the talking. These same individuals account for the vast majority of what gets done and all the leadership. We do use a round robin, but that is rapidly growing impractical given the larger size we are moving to. Several members, especially new ones, who are not very brave or good at speaking what they think and feel sometimes get drowned out or ignored. I am not sure we hear everyone very well but we also try to get feelings identified in sharing circles, around dinner, in chance personal meetings so I think things which are bugging people do have a chance to bubble up somewhat. It has been a long time since a meeting was derailed by unexpressed feelings so maybe it is working. Strong, active, facilitation could help with this. I am becoming more and more skeptical about using consensus as a decision process in a group which has little or no sense of shared mission, but that is a whole other discussion. We sometimes do cover an amazing amount of stuff, very hurriedly rubber stamp decisions with out a lot of thinking, and sometimes we get sort of stalled out around a particular thing. The key difference is how much people care about any given thing on the agenda. Too many of the members seem to care very little about very much. Usually something which doesn't get a real sense of being finished gets sent back to a committee or task force, but occasionally it gets worked through in the meeting, although more than once this has resulted in a solution which is less than optimum. Occasionally something comes up which has such a range of feelings about it that it just gets dropped and no decision is ever made. Every once and while we do actually have a transformational consensus experience, where every one is tuned in and actively engaged, and we synthesize a brilliant solution or idea. This is very exciting when it happens and provides a spark which keeps even the most jaded member coming to the meetings. Rob Sandelin Sharingwood
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.