FREE online courses on Effective Meeting Facilitation - Other Techniques To Make Meetings More Effective - Evaluation

 

Planning requires a willingness to look critically at how the group is performing. Honest reflection can be difficult. One way to help participants become more comfortable with self-critique in a work setting is to ask them to evaluate the meeting. "What aspect of the meeting did you particularly like? Any insights? What didn't go well? What would you do differently next time?" On a written evaluation, leave room for "suggestions." If participants offer their critique orally, the facilitator will need to encourage them to be critical, that the evaluation is an important part of the facilitator's learning and improvement. (See attachment.)

 

Handling conflict in a meeting. If meetings are well planned and orchestrated, conflict is less likely to surface. If it does, it probably needs to. The most common reaction to conflict is avoidance. Repressing conflict, pretending it doesn't exist, hoping it will go away, or admonishing participants for disagreeing are all forms of avoidance. Generally the conflict does not disappear, and often times, the situation worsens.

 

The facilitator is in a good position to help participants engage in constructive conflict. Understanding the nature of conflict, its sources and patterns helps the facilitator remain centered when participants begin to develop oppositional stances on goals or strategies in the planning process.

 

Social scientists make a distinction between objective and subjective conflict. The source of subjective conflict stems from poor relationships, personality clashes, and differences in values. This type of conflict is difficult to handle because values and preferences cannot be negotiated. Rather, participants agree implicitly or explicitly work around fundamental differences either because those differences do not interfere with getting the job done, or because getting the job done is more important than expending energy on fighting.

 

If relationship conflicts have been allowed to fester in an organization, members of that organization may not be able to work together as a planning team. The group may benefit from a team development program, sensitivity training, or application of Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicators to enhance their ability to interact constructively before embarking on a planning process. On the other hand, when participants come together frequently for a significant purpose and experience success on joint goals, often relationships improve. There is no litmus test to determine which of these two routes to follow. The choice may be best left to the participants themselves.

 

The source of objective conflict lies in the allocation of resources salaries, vacation time, office space, supplies, respect. Objective conflicts can be negotiated. The conflict is framed in the same way a problem would be framed, and the negotiations would resemble problem solving. What makes resolving conflict more difficult than solving a problem is the pervasiveness of strong emotions and lack of trust. The facilitator has to move more slowly, spending time talking with participants individually, finding out from each individual or faction what it would take to be able to work together productively again.

 

Here too, the planning process itself may provide the group with the opportunity to improve to rethink job descriptions, performance objectives, incentives, and working conditions. Or, the group may decide to put the planning on hold and focus on settling a specific, exacerbated conflict first. When it appears addressing a specific conflict takes precedence over planning, there are a few principles to keep in mind:

• Allocate sufficient time
• Help the participants clarify what the conflict is about
• Do not take sides
• Affirm the validity of all viewpoints
• Frame the conflict in terms of a problem to be solved
• Create space for problem solving to occur
• Help participants save face
• Discuss what happens if no agreement is reached
• Ask if the group can proceed with what they do agree on and hold back on areas of disagreement
• Keep in mind that ultimately, the participants have the responsibility to resolve the conflict

 

The process to resolve conflict is similar to problem solving. The most important steps, especially when viewpoints have become polarized, are the first four (below). Frequently conflict does not get resolved because the participants begin at step five. The role of the facilitator is particularly valuable to ensure that the participants do start at step one.

 

• The facilitator gains rapport and commitment from the parties to address the conflict. (Side meetings with individuals or factions.)
• Agreement on the scope of what you are trying to solve. "What do you need to agree on so that you can proceed with your organizational mission and goals?" This question may sound easy, yet generally requires more time than anticipated. (First time the participants meet on the conflict.)
• Agreement on ground rules, including meeting protocols, time lines, the scope, who participates and the decision making process. (Second meeting.)
• Gathering and exchanging information on the aspects of the scope from technical data to feelings in a joint session.
• Framing the decision to be made incorporating diverse interests into the problem statement.
• Developing criteria by which to evaluate a wise decision.
• Developing options to address the problem statement.
• Negotiating over the options.
• Making decisions, fine tuning terms and implementation plan.
• Checking back to see how things are going.