Setting Effective Agendas [Part 1]

I recently attended a meeting where the meeting’s flow, information exchange, decision making, and overall results were ineffective. It should come as no surprise that the meeting did not have an agenda. The absence of an agenda created an atmosphere of assumptions, with each participant holding a different perspective on why we were meeting and what decisions the group should make. The lack of common purpose and shared understanding amongst the participants created a chaotic and unproductive environment.

This experience was the inspiration for this series of posts. In the West, few people would disagree that agendas are a basic need for meetings, large and small. However, many of us do not put enough time into setting and utilizing effective agendas. When we do not set or utilize agendas effectively, we surrender leverage over the meeting process that would otherwise serve our interests.

Unproductive meetings usually result from the absence of an agenda, the underutilization of an agenda, or an agenda ineffective for the purposes of the meeting. [1] An agenda serves several purposes and needs: [2]

• Establishes the purpose(s) and goal(s) of a meeting
• Outlines the topics and discussion points for the meeting
• Provides information on who will present on each topic and for how long
• Serves a guide for the meeting flow, which enables the facilitator to keep the meeting on track
• Provides information to participants, which allows them to prepare for the meeting
• Serves a checklist to ensure all major points of discussion are covered

By establishing and distributing an agenda prior to the meeting, the gathering is more likely to be successful. The meeting organizer’s ability to consider the purpose and goals of the meeting enables them to create a framework for an effective gathering. [4] [5]

Components of an Agenda

An effective agenda will be comprised of several components. The components can be thought of as answers to the questions – why, what, who, how, when, and where.

Why. First, the organizer must establish the purpose of the meeting. Without a clear purpose, it is impossible to determine which topics should be covered. The purpose clarifies why the meeting is taking place.

What #1. After establishing the purpose of the meeting, the organizer must consider the goal of the meeting. This clarifies what the organizer expects to accomplish through the meeting. Broadly speaking, meetings can serve two functions – to share information and/or to make decisions. Considering the specific goal or goals of the meeting allows the organizer to determine what function(s) the meeting should serve.

What #2. After establishing the purpose and goal of the meeting, the organizer must consider which topics the meeting should cover and in what order they should be addressed. If the purpose of the meeting is to share information, make sure the agenda’s topics flow in a logical order to serve that aim. If the purpose of the meeting is to make a decision, then structure the topics in a manner that allows the participants room for communicating before deciding.

Who. After establishing the purpose, goal, and topics of the meeting, consider who should present or lead the discussion. This may not always be necessary, but it is helpful to consider which participants are best suited to present or lead a decision-making process based on their status, subject matter expertise, or other qualification germane to the topic. When a decision is sure to be contentious, consider who is best positioned to facilitate the discussion.

How. After considering the topics and presenters or facilitators, establish how long each topic will be discussed. This strategy is easier for information sharing topics, when the information flow is largely one way. When making decisions, it is important that the participants have time to share their perspectives and interests. They will then be better suited to negotiate a joint decision. It is difficult to place a time frame around this process and may be best to not attempt to arbitrarily place time limits on decision-making topics. [3]

When & Where.  Finally, establish when and where the meeting will take place.  Depending on the size of the group and the location of the participants, this can pose scheduling problems.  To ease the burden of potential scheduling conflicts, determine which participants are absolutely necessary and which participants are nice to have involved.  Ensure that all of the necessary participants can attend the selected location, day, and time, then determine which “nice to have” participants can attend in person or remotely.  When the meeting involves decision-making topics that are important to the organization, having all participants in the same room is optimal for effective communication.

The next post will address various ideas for maximizing the effectiveness of your agenda.

 

Sources

1. Japan Intercultural Consulting. Rochelle Kopp. “Setting the Meeting Agenda – Cross-Cultural Meetings Part 4.” Last Modified June 11, 2012. http://goo.gl/Z3BsWb
2. “Meeting Planning, How To Create an Agenda, Step-by-Step.” Last Accessed April 25, 2013. http://goo.gl/RiylLm
3. “Seven Rules for More Effective Meetings.” Last Accessed April 25, 2013. http://goo.gl/RlLHr1
4. Johanna Schlegel. “Running Effective Meetings: Setting an Agenda.” Last Accessed April 25, 2013. http://goo.gl/K7NfZR
5. “Creating Effective Agendas.” Last Accessed April 25, 2013. http://goo.gl/9bP15w

Standards of Justice

I recently had the privilege of taking a training course in cross-cultural negotiation and mediation, led by Professor Nina Meierding. Professor Meierding’s grasp of the characteristics of global cultures and the cultural explanations for human behavior in negotiation and mediation was impressive to say the least. One of the topics we discussed was the differing perspectives on justice to which negotiators and disputants appeal when resolving conflicts.

This seems elementary, but in my own mediation experience, I have worked with parties to determine what they think is just or fair, but I have overlooked the opportunity to explore why a disputant believes an outcome is just or unjust. In other words, I have not explicitly discussed why the parties believe a particular standard of justice is more or less appropriate for resolving the dispute. By neglecting to openly discussing the standards of justice that may be applicable, we have missed the opportunity to explore more avenues for resolution.

Before we explore different standards of justice, let’s review the word’s definition.

jus·tice [juhs-tis]
noun
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason
3. the moral principle determining just conduct
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward

Professor Meierding identified four possible standards to define what a disputant views as just. First is a legal standard of justice. The legal standard represents a framework for understanding what is right in the context of the precedents, statutes, and/or policies that govern the organization (country, state, county, company, non-profit; etc.) in question. The legal standard of justice looks to existing rules to define what is right and just. If the disputants believe that what is right is based on an existing rule, be it the law or otherwise, they are appealing to the legal framework for justice. [2]

The second framework is based on the equity of the disputants’ contribution to the matter in dispute. Aristotle said, “equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally.” [3] This statement summarizes the equity framework perfectly. When a party is seeking  justice based on the contribution (positive or negative) that they or the other party have made to the issue in dispute, then they are referencing the equitable standard of justice.

The third framework can broadly be described as a cultural standard of justice. Parties using a cultural standard of justice will view a resolution is fair when it addresses the cultural norms and standards of a group. If the members of a family were in conflict over a $100.00 inheritance, the cultural standard of justice may dictate dividing the settlement equally among the family members regardless of their individual contributions to the deceased. The cultural standard of justice could also dictate dividing the $100 based on who needed it the most, or who has the greatest status within the family. Cultural standards of justice, such as the needs-based standard, are largely foreign in the United States, but collectively constitute the single most largely used standard worldwide.

Finally, there is a faith based standard of justice that is rooted in the faith or one or both of the parties. This standard of justice appeals to the dictates of faith to determine what is right or just when resolving a conflict. If a disputant cannot agree to terms or conditions of a settlement because of religious reasons, the settlement would violate the disputant’s faith based sense of justice.

Identifying the standard of justice a through which a disputant is judging the resolution of the conflict can greatly aid in facilitating an explicit dialogue about how the parties can choose a just means of resolving the dispute.

 

Sources

1. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. “Justice.” Accessed April 23, 2013. http://goo.gl/Q24wwT
2. Cross Cultural Issues in Negotiation and Mediation. Nina Meierding. 2007. Lipscomb University. Institute for Conflict Management.
3. Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, Michael J. Meyer. “Justice and Fairness.” Sanata Clara University. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Last Accessed May 1, 2013. http://goo.gl/mD5Aaa