EFFECTIVE MEETINGS
By:
2015 John Perkins and Cynthia Pruitt
Introduction
Michael Doyle and David Straus introduced the "Interaction Method in 1976 in their
book How to Make Meetings Work. It built on an innovation dating from the late 1940s
when Kurt Lewin, a founders of the group dynamics field, used butcher paper to
record the comments of participants at a conference.
The Interaction Method presupposes that a successful meeting is everyones
responsibility. It consciously clarifies the different roles played by the facilitator,
recorder, team members, and a leader or manager. It minimizes repetition, keeps
discussion focused, and enlivens participation among team members. In short, helps
develop efficient meetings which support effective teams.
The Interaction Method separates the process of a meeting from its content. It
charges two people with serving the teams process: the facilitator and recorder
(notetaker is another name for this role). They help the team by creating the agenda,
arranging the space, recording peoples comments during discussions and following
up with written notes. The facilitator and recorder do not comment on the content of
the topic under discussion.
The facilitator devotes all of her or his attention on directing the flow the
meeting while the recorder writes the Team Memory on large sheets of paper so
everyone can see them. Team members support the process through exercising self-
control, staying emotionally present and staying aware of the process, people and time.
Facilitating and Recording are team skills as well as individual ones. As with any
skills, continued practice will help everyone become better meeting team members.
And skilled team members improve their own meeting results and experiences.
Table of Contents 2
Anatomy of An Agenda 7
Facilitation Skills 11
Participation Skills 12
Resources 16
As the work overwhelms what one person can do, he or she recruits, hires or joins
others and together they create a group or team to do the work. A wise team
consciously attends to its collective task and maintenance needs. Thus, a busy
restaurant insists that workers sharpen all knives at the end of a shift and return them
to their storage places, serving their task function. They may also take time to cook
and socialize over a meal before the crunch of dinershonoring one of their
maintenance functions.
TASK MAINTENANCE
+ Positive/Functional + Positive/Functional
Individual Individual
+ Allowed to practice a new skill + Celebrating indiv. successes
+ Leadership roles + Belonging
Team Team
+ Sticking to Vision & Mission + Agreeing to Team Rules
+ Improving Procedures + Time to Learn & Reflect
Negative/Dysfunctional Negative/Dysfunctional
Individual Individual
Excessively critical Hoarding the credit
Ambiguous roles Withdrawing
Team Team
Poor/Nonexistent Preparation Prolonged ambiguities
Indifference to Time Not reaching agreements
SOURCES: Walker, Margaret & Woodruff, Bob. 10/15/99. Organizational Systems Renewal Institute.
Schein, E.H. 1970. Groups and intergroup relations. In Natemeyer, W.E. & Gilberg, J.S. (Eds.),
Classics of Organizational Behavior.
FACILITATOR NOTETAKER
Name: Name:
Place a large DRAFT at the beginning of the notes. Team members can offer
suggestions and changes before the notes are considered final or approved. As
most notes are for internal team use, assume that team members are abreast enough
of developments that the notes do not have to provide overly detailed descriptions.
FORMAT OF NOTES
Heading. It may help to have a standard heading to capture basic information. For
example:
Use tact when describing the After Meeting Review. As a general rule, gloss over
individually volunteered areas for improvement but mention comments that suggest
places for the team to improve.
Process Facilitator
focuses the attention of the team
starts the meeting
creates an agenda
keeps the meeting on track
watches the clock
Team Members
abide by the ground rulesexercise self-
control
support the facilitator and recorder
become an asset to the teams work
balance the power of influence
stay emotionally present, honest,
sensitive to other members
serve team needs and goals
stay aware of process, people, and time
stop when a supportable solution is
found
The After Meeting Review (AMR) is a specific variant of the After Action Review
(AAR). The main difference is that the AMR brings team attention to the specific
details of how it conducts its meetings. The AAR can have a much larger scope and
help a team take a retrospective view of its activities and results. The AMR is the
specific caseAAR the general one.
Not only the Army, but firefighters, forest fire jumpers, commercial airline flight
crews, air traffic controllers and some surgery teams use AAR to learn, share their
personal perceptions of what occurred during their shift, and find ways to adjust
their exceptions and behaviors (learn) to improve performance.
When The AMR should review the actions of the team near the end of a meeting.
What is discussed, of course, depends on what happened. Usually, expect an AMR
to take five minutes or less. Vary the comments as necessary; take longer when
required by circumstances.
Sample sequence:
Begin AMR (See notes after the end of these steps for additional explanations.)
6. [Team members} One thing I (we) could improve on for next time is H.
1-3. Allowing the facilitator, recorder and members to offer their own positive
self-evaluations begins the AMR on an upbeat. It also avoids one member
volunteering to be the team evaluator or expert. If a team member is
practicing a skill for the first time, this offers them a chance to share some of
their pre-meeting anxieties and satisfaction with how well matters turned
out. Theres a limit of two as a way to help members constrain how much
time they take speaking.
4-6. Similar principle as noted for the first three steps, this time team members
volunteer where they may improve. It works because it is self-chosen,
achievable, and preserves of the speakers self-esteem.
7. Whenever possible, it is best for team members to phrase suggestions in
neutral or positive language. We took 20 minutes on check-in today may
be enough for team members to be reminded that meeting time is short and
to offer briefer check-ins at the next meeting. This is preferred over: Because
of our long-windedness we spent too much time socializing at the beginning
and had to rush through some important items.
Doyle, Michael and Straus, David. 1993, 1976. How to Make Meetings Work : The New
Interaction Method. Berkley Pub Group: New York.
Fisher, Roger, and Ury, William. 1981. Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without
Giving In. New York: Penguin.
Hon, David. 1980. Meetings That Matter: A Self-Teaching Guide. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Human Leadership and Development Division of the American Society for Quality,
The Association for Quality and Participation and The International Association of
Facilitators. 2002. Basic Facilitation Skills. Available on 8/10/07 at http://
www.uiowa.edu/~cqi/2002BasicFacilitationPrimer.pdf
Kerth, Norman. 2001. Project Retrospectives: A Handbook for Team Reviews. New York:
Dorset House.
Murk, Peter. 1994.. Effective Group Dynamics: Theories and Practices. International
Adult Education Conference of the American Association for Adult and Continuing
Education, Nashville, TN. Available on 8/12/07 at http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED377401
Scholtes, Peter. R., et al. 1988. The Team Handbook: How to Use Teams to Improve Quality.
Madison, WI: Joiner Associates.
Straus, David and Doyle, Michael. 2002. Interaction Associates webpage. Available
8/12/07 at http://www.interactionassociates.com/