Category Archives: Managing People

Working Remote and Distributed or Not

Having left Adcloud and thinking about what to do next, the main focus at the moment is thinking about the setup of that next thing. One obvious part of that is where it will be and actually, does it have to be anywhere at all?

There are some very big proponents of not having an office and one of those is actually Matt Mullenweg, who talked a bit about this in a Pando Monthly Interview. If you want the best people, they will not all be in one city. In this video he says that you have to be where you work, and if you work on the internet, then be on the internet. He does agree that changing a company is hard, but when you start you can do it right. Only 20 of it’s 150 people actually come to the office in san francisco. He does admit or clear up though that what they save on office space, they blow on travel. If you want to know more about the history of WordPress, I suggest this article on Forbes.

Another big supporter of distributed teams is of course 37signals and David Heinemeier Hansson, as visible in this article, and more or less 50% of his tweets ;) . They also get all the team together 3 times a year somewhere in the world to get the important face to face time. Here is a good post by an employee about how it is to work there. Github is actually also distributed. Github actually has no work hours, no managers, no deadlines and no meetings… or so they say. People probably gravitate to meet somehow, but still, the point is what the goal is. The important thing is that if you decide you do not to have office hours you need to think about how do build your company with that idea. The founders of Github have my vote solely on the point that allnighters are a bad idea. Happy people are more productive, get more good people in and are just happier. So the goal is to get the best work out of your employees. The have hack houses, where they get teams together for a month. And one important item is that their employees have kids and you need to support that. Family friendly I can also agree with. They also have something very important if you are distributed, a central dashboard showing you where people are.

Github Team View

They do everything over chat… even if they are in the same room. Fun :) Here is a good article by an employee from his view. They are actually working similar to Valve (See the Valve Handbook), because everyone decides themselves what they want to do. You need a clear vision for that of course. But don’t you need that anyway? And you need people to convince other people about projects. But, it only works in a product company he believes as you have that focus on something and can focus on long term. Being profitable from the start helps of course.

As another side of the coin I do agree with Johanna Rothman though in that you will need an office at home if you work from home. Then again, a coworking space close by has the same effect if you are just not 10km bit 200km from the head office. And this is not only for developers, why aren’t your sales people where their customers are instead of where the office is. Her idea of an office from that article really fits with my general ideas at the moment of using things like Startplatz as an office. They are now expanding and adding a lot more meeting rooms and a lot more small office spaces. The place is inspiring and I have a beautiful space, reception, coffee, meeting rooms, team rooms, phone rooms, parking, great location and much more. And then I want that in different places possible. In the new part I will actually have a small 3 people office that can be locked and we will just distribute outward into the open spaces available.

And as for the communication problem, I touched on it above, but Justin Carmony has a great post on it. In a nutshell, you need to change your entire company to be distributed. The communication channels need to be setup so that communication happens asynchronously and is logged somewhere. I am not fond of the idea of having to go all in, but it does have a point. That’s why Github chats over everything.

Some good tips for going distributed are here, and important to note is that people will need to report on what they are doing and did.

I am currently envisioning a system that facilitates distributed teams and am actually wondering if there is nothing out there already. I would like to have something where people show where they are, a chatroom where everybody hangs out, always available hangout for face to face chats, integrated task management with an automatic logs of things you have been doing visible to all, distributed but clear places to meet each other with an easy way to plan ahead (I’ll go to X tomorrow, who is joining?).

Oh, and one more thing. Are there virtual Nerf guns? ;)

What do you think?

The Real Life Gunter Dueck

On the 18th of March I was fortunate enough to see Gunter Dueck aka wilddueck at an event organised by Startplatz. Thanks a lot for Lorenz and Matthias for inviting me! I actually have to give it to the two, they are making great strides with Startplatz. I am still missing real offices instead of open space, but other than that, what a great place to be. I am already looking forward to spending some time in the coming weeks.

But back to the subject at hand. The KOMED Hall was packed and after a Startplatz Intro by Matthias, Gunter Dueck came to the stage and started well. Lots of anecdotes, the stuff he is good at. I actually put a few things into tweets which I will list here.

He really said that this was his greatest learning after 5 years.

Ok, that one is obvious and often said, but needs repeating. You still need to make a plan by the way as it helps you think, but then you can put it away.

It’s really looking at Crossing the Chasm a little bit differently, but he emphasised that this middle part needs the entrepreneurs that will be willing to go through these hard times. He is not one of them by the way. He repeated that often.

This was actually very valuable as it is so simple. It was told to him by somebody that listed a lot of startups at the NASDAQ and others. It is just that a VC knows that 10% of his investments will have to pay for the entire portfolio more or less. So they need to big bets. Making 100 million EURs on a 10 million EUR investment just makes you break even. To understand this portion from the getgo and build the really big ones, always think that each cost has a 40% interest. It’s really scary, but a good frame of reference. Also Gunter Dueck said that there really only is a hockeystick. All other graphs for company growths are meaningless and not really existent in terms of breakthrough products, and that what innovation is about.

This was agreed upon by many. We actually had an entire team doing those fights for us at Adcloud, and they did a great job. But in the end you need a sponsor at the top. And btw, this is not something that is bad or good or anything, it is just like this. There are budgets, and sales people, and stories, and whatnot inside a company that all naturally is against rocking the boat. This makes it really hard.

Well put.

This again is really important and really true. Same as saying that you need to be orders of a magnitude better. I actually don’t even think consultants CAN get you to a 2+.

Then to end this one slide of what you really have to do for innovation.

A few words on those. Agile is becoming a buzzword but really looking at the core values of agile, and lean for that matter, leads to a change in how you really work. This is especially hard for established players that have clear data on their old business on what to do next, that do not exist in the world we are in today, especially in younger companies. And you need an entrepreneurial spirit and you need risk taking. I wondered recently if a team inside a big company could say that they will forgo 6 months salary for a matching investment of e.g. 5 or 10 times the salary they give up and get a share in the business. This would be a lot more startup like. You have pain on the founder side then, but by making sure that they can have their job back after 6 months you allow them to take risks.

I will leave you at that and let you think for yourselves. It is a really tough subject I am thinking more and more about.

Creating Chance

The wonderful Change This has a good presentation by Peter Sims, entitled “Little Bets: Think Differently“, which is largely about entrepreneurship and finding your idea and business model. He starts of with some good examples, e.g.: Google didn’t begin with a brilliant vision, but as a project to improve library searches, followed by a series of small discoveries that unlocked a revolutionary business model. Larry Page and Sergei Brin did not begin with an ingenious idea. But they certainly discovered one.

Examples rock and this makes it clear that a lot of building a company is luck, but as they say, you can only stumble if you’re walking and…  you need to iterate. I love his example of Starbucks, which started out as with an italian coffee shop model (good), including no chairs, menues in italian and constant opera music (bad ;) ).

The important thing for this kind of iterative innovation is:

Experimental innovators must be persistent and willing to accept failure and setbacks as they work iteratively toward their goals.

He suggests to flip the switch, saying to change the matra “from expected gains to affordable losses”. As Jeff Bezos seems to have said: “You can’t put into a spreadsheet how people are going to behave around a new product.”

That really means you need to look at failure differently, and this is hard. You need to see failure as something that innovation and creativity comes from. Sadly, this is just not in our normal DNA. Hunting deer and failing to kill one will not make you go home to your tribe and say “Boy I missed, go creativity.”

What I find interesting is that you read about stuff like this again and again, but still many people are not following it with their heart. Kevin Rose tried it with Milk but then got bought by Google and is now planting many seeds as investor at Google Ventures.

Take this quote from Thomas A. Edison: Results! Why man, I have gotten a lot of results. I know several thousand things that won’t work.

There are also lots of tools to help you get your creative juices flowing and I have an entire book about them, but you need the basic company culture to really make it happen. And you also need a rough but basic vision of where you want to go, because only that will allow you to have the stamina and funding to go through lots of small dips and see them as opportunities. This commitment to an idea that is not proven yet, is what is really rare.

Now go create and don’t give us so easily.

Failure is not to be feared. It is from failure that most growth comes; privided that one can recognize it, admit it, learn from it, rise above it, and try again. – Dee Hock

Good Developers are like Milk Cows

The idea came to me in bed, bare with me a second, it turns out it is a great analogy :)

First thing to know is that cows give milk best if they get new calves every year, and please let’s leave the judgemental part of whether that is good out here ;) But this already is fitting. The very good developers need a new baby, something fresh to work on every year at least. A new idea, a new part within a platform, a new challenge.

Then we have the weather, and it looks like cows are again similar. Most developers want to have a good working environment that has the right temperature. It’s really a general thing with people. We tend to not work well if the office is 30 degrees. The same thing is true for cows, who actually give milk best around 20 degrees.

There is a big report on cow behaviour and milk let-down, that provides further insights. As you see there, cows will not approach very bright light and need their own social space in view of the leader to be able to follow them. Cows can also adapt to new situations but you need to allow them to move at their own pace at first, trying to remove any fearful experiences along the way. If a cows position changes constantly, they cannot really adapt and will not give a lot of milk, like developers who become unproductive in a too fluctuating team. If cows are handled badly by a person, they tend to link that behaviour with the place it happened in… so they will be more productive in another company if they do not get along.

We all know the flow, the kind of hormon that you get when things are really working, when the right stimulus is applied, and again, for cows this is the hormon oxitocin that helps milk let-down. The important thing is that this stimulus can come from any sensory signal and to really move to good milk let-down you need to work on finding those stimuli in a cow and make it reproducible.  Important again is the absence of fear or pressure. This will not work.

Important to know is that bad influences that are stress inducing, will likely have an effect for weeks, and only after that time the cow will become relaxed again and be able to let the milk let-down flow freely.

Newcastle University then found out that if you want your cow to produce more milk, get to know her. Call her by name and build up a relationship. Make her understand that she is important for you.

There is further information for the handler right here. Important is to remove excessive noise and use positive interactions more frequently. Examine their routine habits and remove those that lead to fear and minimise negative or painful and unfamiliar milking procedures. Keep everything consistent and rather move them as a group than individually.

I hope you now all learned something about getting the best code out of the developers. Now go stroke your cows ;)

Update: I just remembered, here is a great post with a connection to the herding theme ;) Nerd Herding by Cal Evans.

Handling Change

(Originally published on the OUBS Blog)
Now it’S your job to move things forward and get the change process under way in your area of responsibility. There is no one best strategy.
Five change strategies were described by Thurley and Wirdenius (1973):
- Directive strategies: management’s right to manage change; fast; valuable info lost, resistance
- Expert strategies: management of change as problem solving; special project team because of expertise and fast; not accepted and resistance
- Negotiating strategies: bargaining about change; willingness to negotiate; may take longer
- Educative strategies: managing change means winning hearts and minds; persuasion, education, training and selection; positive commitment; take much longer; takes more resources.
- Participative strategies: we’re all involved in making the changes; widely accepted; learning; more skills in the decision; opportunities for staff; long, complex, resource intensive
There are several factors that help decide which route to take.
- Urgency of the situation
- Degree of opposition
- Power base
- Need for information and commitment
You should also see that change does not always generate irreconcilable positions and conflicts, and that debate and opposition are not necessarily band may lead to improvements in the proposed changes.
Here are some of the main reasons why people resist change by Kanter (cited by Lorenz, 1985):
- Loss of control
- Loss of face
- Loss of identity
- Loss of competence
- Excessive personal uncertainty
- Surprise
- More work
- Past resentments
- Unintended consequences
- Real threats
Resulting strategies are:
- Avoid unnecessary change
- Communication and education
- Participation and involvement
- Support and development
- Negotiation and bargaining
- Building coalitions and alliances
- Manipulation and co-option (buying off of the outspoken opposition)
- Explicit and implicit coercion
It seems that manipulation and co-option is just how it is done. Trust versus control.
The best a manager can do is to be as clear and honest as possible with those involved about what has already been decided and about what choices are still to be made or can be influenced, even if this means people are only involved in aspects of the implementation, rather than the change decision itself.
You will also want to encourage a positive involvement and commitment to the change process. But:
- what are the risks of over-commitment
- is full agreement necessary
- should all opposition be overcome
Commitment planning can be done via a chart used to show the level of commitment:
- Opposed or not committed
- Let
- Help
- Make
O would indicate their current and X their needed position
You might find it useful to:
- use rewards
- treat immediate problems
- be a role model
- use peer group pressure
- encourage sharing of positive changes
You should also think about creating a climate for change. Kanter et al (1992) said that you should take the risk of creating a culture and an environment in which everyone in the organisation can initiate and explore changes and innovations.
It is also important to evaluate and monitor change.
A checklist:
Preparing for change
- maintain a climate of change
- be alert to problems
- careful diagnosis
- consider driver and restraining forces
- decide on involvement
- do benefits outweigh costs
- which strategy
Implementing change
- decide on goals
- plan the change and draw a timetable
- remember cost and look at resources
- monitor
- keep a reserve for unexpected things
- indentify resistance
- consider methods to lower resistance
Consolidate change
- monitor
- modify
- reinforce and consolidate

Understanding change

(Originally published on the OUBS Blog)
The main problem is that people may not see the need for change or may think the reason is mistaken; it may threaten practices that people value highly; may have unintended consequences; may threaten the interest of some staff. Some see it with enthusiasm others as a threat.
Our reactions will depends on our attitudes and on the circumstances and details.
Kanter et al (1992) identified three different roles in the change process:
- change strategist or initiator
- changer implementers
- change recipients
Typically if you are the middle manager you are the recipient but also have some responsibility for implementing it which is a source of tension.
Our attitudes to change are shaped by what we perceive to be its likely consequences.
To change or not to change? The first problem is if it is warranted and feasible. We often only make sense of change after the fact. When initiating it you do not have the benefit of hindsight.
You may start with a vague ‘things are not right’ but only raise difficult issues until you are sure it is necessary which is why sometimes the crisis preleads the change.
Another issue is defining the scope. Where do you stop? Leavitt’s diamond provides a useful example. If you make a change in one area you need to consider the likely implications in other areas and the balance between the four components. Task, People, Structures, System.
You can use force-field analysis to assess the prospects. Kurt Lewin suggested that any group is held in balance and that means that it prevents movement.
You have driving forces and restraining forces and want to move the balance from the original state to the desired future state.
It often helps to cluster the forces:
- personal
- interpersonal
- intergroup
- technological
- financial
- organisational
- environmental
Think about it. Are the driving forces going to grow stronger? Is it realistic to expect that restraining forces to slacken or could they build up? You should try to shift the forces in favor of change. There are may also be no such thing as an equilibrium and different parts will probably change at different rates.
The aim of force-field analysis is not to create well-defined battle lines but to make a realistic, all-round as
sessment of the prospects for change.
Some see the change process as a three-phase model. We set of knowing only roughly where we are headed and a key competence is the ability to tolerate, perhaps to even enjoy a degree of uncertainty and ambiguity.
The best known model is of Lewin (1951). Unfreezing, change or movement and then refreezing. Nowadays preparing, changing and consolidating is preferred as the other wording was too rigid.
Phase 1 – preparing should be about how best to mobilise support for your ideas from your managers, staff and other relevant parties. Leadership and networking will be important as well as communication and providing a sense of direction. This phase is about people coming to terms with the need for change and starting to consider possibilities. Your role will be to contain (neither rejecting nor reinforcing) the feelings and reactions.
Think like this:
Dissatisfaction + Vision of a better future + Safe first step there > cost
It may be possible to mitigate some of the costs by offering more help or assistance to those most affected by the change.
Phase 2 – changing is important is planning and control, managing individuals and groups; exercising power; using your leadership skills; keeping your group in step with external demands; managing decision making; self-awareness and style. Be prepared to encounter unforeseen factors, unanticipated sources of resistance and unexpected consequences and so on. Build some slack into plans.
Phase 3 – consolidating was described by Kanter et al (1992) as the phase of reinforcement and institutionalisation. Making sure the new behaviours are incorporated in the day-to-day operations.
Hence it is necessary to monitor and take appropriate actions.

Leadership

(Originally published on the OUBS Blog)
Leadership involves influencing others to follow a particular direction or aim for a particular goa. There are three approaches.
Trait theories is what makes someone an effective leader is their own their own personality and personal qualities; that is, leaders are born, not made. The consensus says that intelligence, initiative, self-confidence, an orientation towards achievement and interpersonal skills are important.
Style theories say that it is people’s behaviour rather than their psychological characteristics that determines weather they are effective leaders and this can be described as a concern for task and concern for people. The managerial grid of Blake and Mouton (1962) can be helpful here.
(concern for task/production, concern for people)
- (1,9): Country club management: production is incidental to lack of conflict and good relationship
- (1,1) Impoverished management: effective production unobtainable because people are lazy, apathetic and indifferent. Sound and mature relationships are difficult to achieve because human nature being what it is, conflict is inevitable
- (5,5) Dampened pendulum: Middle of the road, push for production but don’t go all out; give some but not all. Be fair and firm
- (9,1) Task management: People are a commodity, just like machines. A manager’s responsibility is to plan, direct and control the work of those subordinate to him or her
- (9,9) Team management: Production is from integration of task and human requirements
Contingency theories say that what constitutes an effective style of leadership will depend on the situation. Early theorist is Fiedler (1967) Favourableness depends on:
- leader-member relationship
- task structure
- the leader’s position power
He also found that:
- task oriented leaders perform better in situations which are either very favourable or very unfavourable
- relationship-oriented leaders perform better in moderate faourableness
- performance depends on the situation and the style
The most important thing here is that a good leader fits his style to the situation. Fiedler said the style is fixed and the situation should be worked on. Then again, Hersey and Blanchard (1988) disagreed and said the style should be adapted.
Some problems here include:
- often the manager is not the leader
- it’s about working effectively not about giving a sense of direction
- you influence your situation � it cannot be objectively analysed
Hoskings (1997) says you should think of leadership as a process. The influence needs to be acceptable and who is regarded as the leader depends on what the leader does and the expectations and perceptions of the followers.
It’s about tackling core issues:
- Strategic issues
- Task issues
- People or maintenance problem
There are three important implications:
- A leader is someone who influences how the group tackles the core issues it faces but does not necessarily have formal authority
- A group can have more than one leader and therefore leadership can be focused or dispersed.
- Knowledge of the wider environment and an understanding of how it is likely to affect the group is needed. Effective networking and being a good ambassador are important leadership skills.
3. Leadership abilities and skills
There are three main functions: strategic, task and interpersonal.
Leadership is about acceptable influence and effective persuasion depends on knowledge and expertise and on developing interpersonal relationships based on mutual trust and understanding.
A person’s ability to lead depends on their influence within a group and their influence outside it. Being an ambassador and being able to communicate your knowledge is very important. You should also be a role model especially in dealing with interpersonal relationships and for establishing shared values and norms of individual performance and behaviour.
Networking builds up from what we learn from other people and they can be a vital resource. Remember that networking is not about friends but rather about friends of friends. There are some things to consider:
Networks and exchange is a social network, a means of making exchanges and each party gains something.
Entering networks have no formal means of joining and you gradually become part by building a relationship. Some members are more influential and are called the gatekeepers.
Choosing networks is important as with too many networks they become an end in itself.
Creating networks only works if people get something out of it.
Networks and equal opportunities is something you should remember as sometimes they have a negative effect as you can become a clique and people may be kept out of networks for gender or race or other things.
Being an ambassador means you represent the group and are a mobiliser and a director of the group.
Communication skills are very important and it is important to be clear. They are needed to influence people. You need to build channels to communicate effectively.
Being a role model is wonderful as whether you know it or not you lead by example. You are more likely to be effective if your deeds match your words.
To maintain morale, cohesion and commitment create a climate in which conflict is handled constructively. You will need to be able to take some criticism and to absorb some of the anxieties and tensions of the group without over-reacting.
You need to keep a sense of proportion and maintain you sense of optimism, enthusiasm and humor. A group needs a clear sense of where things are going what it is they are trying to achieve while believing the objectives to be important.

Power, authority and influence

(Originally published on the OUBS Blog)

Influence occurs when a person or a group affects what another person or group does and/or thinks.

Power is the potential or capacity of a person or group to influence other people or groups.

Authority is one particular kind of power given to an individual or group.

Power depends on the relationship and the success of using power will depend on the values that you have to offer and the trust and respect in you.

Power also could derive from difference, i.e. a needed specialist.

Power depends on the belief and not on what you actually have at your disposal.

Power is never one sided and other peoples power should not be viewed as negative.

Power is contextual as in the fact that your potential to influence depends on the context of the relationship.

  1. Sources of Power

Classic framework from French and Raven (1960). There are different power bases (sources of power):

  • Position and authority: your position entitles you to do certain things, backed by rules, regulations and resources. This is mostly not over people but over tasks and functions that need to be performed.
  • Control of resources: Control of any resources is important within and between companies. To reduce people’s power of you reduce your dependence on their resources.
  • Social connections: “It’s now what you know but who you know that’s important.â€? Your capacity to influence will depend on your ability to gather information and mobilise resources and support
  • Expertise: being an expert. This is most acceptable but your expertise needs to be recognised. Technical knowledge is about a product or service. Process knowledge is about how to get things done.
  • Control of information: people who control information are often called gatekeepers.
  • Personal characteristics: colleagues’ respect, loyalty and trust. Charisma or respect for the integrity, judgement and consideration of someone who is influential behind the scenes.

You are often driven by a mixture of them. Remember that your sources of power will vary from situation to situation.

  1. Influence strategies – the six Ps

The use of position: influence others by using the authority of your position. Your position to impose rules and procedures.

Push strategies attempt to influence by imposing or threatening to impose costs on your target. This will depend on your position and the resources you control and might lead to a climate of fear and distrust.

Pull (reward) strategies are the basis of theories of motivation and depends on the reward being desired and fair. Praise and recognition are often used.

Persuasion is the achievement of influence through appeals to reason. You can draw on your expertise and control of information and the delivery of the argument is important. This is the preferred option because people will do what you want because they believe in what you are trying to do. But avoid assuming that other people share your values, see things like you do and that they are wrong if they disagree.

Preparatory strategies prepare the ground for future attempts at influence possibly by trying to build a positive relationship.

Preventive strategies are for preventing certain action, such as stopping questions being raised, holding back info or suppressing dissent. The danger is that if they are revealed they can lead to a breakdown of openness and trust.

You need to use your power responsibly and the influence you find acceptable will depend on your own values and weather those you are trying to affect find your influence strategies acceptable. You should think of your relationship and the unwritten psychological contract.
- The nature of your authority and influence
- Your style of management
- Reward and punishment
- Your contribution

working collaboratively across boundaries

This is about two groups purposefully linking up to achieve something.
This involves negotiation of boundaries and can be strategic alliances or intra-organisation learning.
Failure often comes from tension and conflict. But boundaries are about difference and hence some of them have to be overcome like different ways of working or concepts of effectiveness.
Resource-dependency theory is one way of thinking about this as you gain power over the dependence on key resources. They need what others offer. It assumes that actions are taken only when they clearly benefit the interests of the group and that impasse results when interests of two groups are not exactly aligned.
Collaborative advantage is a simple rational exchange between parties, about creating joint value. 1+1 > 2. This can only be achieved by building trusting, open and high-commitment relationships.
There are several stages of collaboration:
- Seeking agreement
- Selecting mode
o Legal form
o Number of participants
o Duration
o Range of joint assets
o Range of activities
o Intensity of co-operation
o Distribution of rights
- indentifying and attracting partners
- Evaluation collaborative capability
- Starting work
o Structure
o Action
o Goals
o Accountabilities
- Evaluation collaborative ventures
You should look out at the interdependence of groups as this needs to be equal and noone should only depend on the other. (low, sequential or reciprocal)
There is also a culture in working in a group and you need to foster than and manage it. Policies and culture are important.

Meetings

(Originally published on the OUBS Blog)

Meetings differ in their purpose, expectations, rights and responsibilities and how they should be run.

Briefing meetings are there to instruct people and tell them what is expected of them. They need to understand and be free to ask questions.

Business meetings are decision-making meetings with a more or less formal agenda. Information is shared, issues discussed and decisions made. Common fault is to discuss everything at great length.

Planning meetings take time and are usually better delegated to a smaller subgroup with a clear brief.

Consultation meetings are normally there to get the opinions of the people who are invited to attend. Should be well planned, with clear brief, and they should be chaired by someone with a facilitative style that will elicit information.

Review and evaluation meetings are held to assess how the organisation is achieving its collective and individual goals.

Sometimes things can be done in other ways:
- decisions delegated to individuals
- Information passed on in written form
- Consultation meetings by one-to-one meetings, …
- Support during individual supervision or paired working arrangements
- Responsibility allocated to individuals

Advantages
- involvement � sense of ownership
- Democratic style
- Staff skills improved
- Increased satisfaction
- Good communication
- Staff kept in contact
- Junior staff access to management
- Decision making improved
- Managers keep in touch
- Members stay involved

Disadvantages
- staff away from other work
- expensive
- take longer
- individual responsibility and initiative dampened � less satisfaction
- possibly poor decisions

Remember there is no one right way to run a meeting. There are different types.

Adversarial meetings are more likely when members represent many different constituencies and points of view. There is open debate, you lobby for your view, no agreement but a vote and limited trust.

Consensual meetings happen when members have similar values, beliefs and goals. There is open sharing and you are elaborate. You put your self interest below the group and the decisions of the group emerge fitting the needs of the group.

On top of that comes the formal and informal meetings.

Influences on a meeting depend on the underlying values and goals, the attitudes and skills of members and tradition is important.

Opportunities depend on the style. The formal-adversarial meeting encourages individual achievement and requires political skills. It pays to prepare. It also depends heavily on a skilful and effective chairperson.
The consensual meeting places the emphasis on the group effort and the chairperson is less needed. Listening skills, clear, assertive presentation, openness and honesty and respect and interest for others are important things.

You should indentify the culture and style and then you will be more aware of the fit between you and the meeting and might be able to adapt your personal style to fit.

There are different functions at meetings.

For example, somebody needs to be chairing and facilitating which is needed when there are more than 6 people in the team. The style should be appropriate to the type of meeting, congruent with the culture and style of the meeting and consented to by the majority of the ordinary members.

Here are some possible functions of a chairperson

Traditional Chairperson
- ensure fair play
- stay in charge
- stay neutral
- open the meeting
- state the purpose
- introduce all agenda items
- get through
- close
- select speakers
- ask questions
- summarise
- end discussions
- make people stick to subject
- arbitrate disputes
- control interruptions
- ensure decisions are taken
- decide when to move on
- conduct vote
- ensure responsibilities
- work by rules
- act on behalf of the meeting
- pursue decisions
- represent groups

Facilitative chairperson
- have an overview of tasks/goals
- help group take responsibility
- help group carry out tasks
- have little emotional invest.
- Run though agenda, approve
- Arrange intros
- Update latecomers
- Keep track of time
- Evaluate meeting
- Encourage participation
- Encourage viewpoints
- Encourage stick to subject
- Clarify discussions
- Make it safe for feelings
- Handle conflict
- Remind of procedures
- Look at agreements
- Test to see agreements
- Ensure tasks to be carried out
- Help decisions

You can either let the chairperson learn over time or rotate chairpersons to let everyone learn.
During the meeting it is helpful to receive feedback on how effective you were and what you could do to improve.

The secretary is another task that is needed sometimes. Primary skills are note taking and an important planning role. For example spelling out what the meeting is expected to do will help you avoid problems and help people prepare.

The official record must happen and it is important to be accurate and impartial. Decisions, results and exact wordings of proposals or resolutions are important. Also who was present and such should be there.
Useful is an action column in the margin of the minutes where you put people’s names if they should do something.

The framework of a meeting has both overt and hidden components. This includes the agenda and other papers, the minutes, the room layout, the rules and protocols, the language and the understandings.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,881 other followers

%d bloggers like this: