In my over thirty years of experience in meetings (both meetings using parliamentary procedure and not using parliamentary procedure, such as meetings in businesses) I have learned many tactics that can make the meeting more effective and efficient! Many of these tactics are explained in greater detail in my book, The Guerrilla Guide to Robert’s Rule.  This article is a summary of the tactics that can be useful in all of the meetings you attend.  This is the fourth part of a four-part article. 

In Part 1, 2, and 3 of this series I covered the following subjects:

• Share Ownership of the Meeting
• Purpose of Meeting Clear to All
• No Agenda, No Meeting
• Role of the Meeting Chairman
• The Importance of a Second
• Focus Attention on One Issue at a Time
• Preparing for the Contentious Meeting
• Focused Issue Discussion
• Ownership of the Idea

This part will focus on the following subjects:

• Speaking Rules
• Equal Knowledge of the Rules of the Group
• Impartiality of the Chair

Speaking Rules

My experience is that most people don’t like the idea of having speaking rules in meetings . . . until someone else goes on and on and on! Then speaking rules begin looking like a great idea. At that time, however , it can feel  awkward to put them in place because the rambler might take it personally.  The best time to determine and set speaking rules is when people don’t believe they are needed.

Always have speaking rules of some kind in place and have the practice of using them.  The worst thing the rules can do is ensure that all of the members are treated fairly when it comes to speaking time! 

There are some rules that are paramount to equal treatment.  The number one rule is one that should be put into practice whether you have established rules or not: No member may speak a second time until everyone who wishes to speak a first time has had the opportunity to do so.  Another very useful speaking rule is to limit on the number and length of speeches during discussion. Robert’s does that when he establishes that no person may speak more than two times for more than ten minutes each time.

The advantage to limiting the number and length of speeches is twofold.  First, these limitations force a person to plan what they are going to say.  If they can’t bop up and down every time they get an idea, they begin making notes and organizing their thoughts – which is almost always a wonderful idea with many benefits!   Personally, I believe 10 minutes is far too long.  After teaching speech at the college level for over 30 years, I am aware of how many ideas a person can get into a well planned 3 to 5 minute presentation and believe that the shorter limit is best.   The second advantage to limiting the number and length of speeches is that in a given time period of discussion, that limitation ensures that you will hear from more members of the group.  The advantage of group decision making is that you get ideas from many and various people.  This rule increases the number of points of view that the group will hear before making a decision.

An additional speaking rule that can contribute to the quality of the discussion is to alternate sides of the argument. In a large convention, this is done very effectively by having pro and con microphones and alternating between them.  In a smaller group, this can be very easily implemented by the meeting chair simply saying:  “We just heard a member speak in favor of the proposal, is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the proposal?”  There are many advantages to alternating sides, but the least obvious one that I have observed is that it has a tendency to shorten the discussion period.  When the debate is very one-sided, alternating sides makes it apparent that it is one-sided and that continued discussion is probably not necessary.  When no one wants to speak against the proposal, fewer hands go up to speak in favor of the proposal.  Thus resulting in moving quicker to making a decision!

Speaking rules can be very effective.  They need to be used wisely.  A time when they are very effective is when a group has a very controversial issue and a limited amount of time to discuss it.  At the very beginning of that discussion period, the establishment of a few rules can enhance the discussion and likely assist the group in making a wiser decision.

Equal Knowledge of the Rules of the Group

Parliamentary procedure is all about fairness.  Therefore, it is important that everyone in the meeting is on a level playing field.  The best way to do that is to make sure that everyone in the room has an equal knowledge of the rules used by the group.

Research in group communication has for years supported the concept that all groups who meet over a period of time have rules. The rules may not be in writing, but they are there. The problem is that some of us are better than others at figuring out what are the rules of the group. Unfortunately some people only learn the rules by breaking them and paying the price.

In order to ensure that the playing field is level for all members, it is an excellent practice for a group to establish the rules that will be used by the group.  In non parliamentary settings those rules are often referred to as a Code of Conduct, or as Ground Rules, or as Rules of Engagement.  The rules may be focused on team behavior or on meeting guidelines.  Whatever they are called and whatever their focus, the rules need to be decided by the group if the members of the group are expected to follow them.  Then, they should be readily available to the group so that they are reminded to follow them.

Impartiality of the Chair

In an earlier part of this newsletter, I discussed the role of the meeting chairman.  One of the roles deserves additional attention.  That is the need for the chair to remain impartial during discussion.  As the leader, the chair should remain as impartial as possible during the discussion.  That means not participating in the group discussion and ensuring that all sides are heard from and fairly treated. 

Impartiality of the chair is frequently a very difficult role.  And, it increases in difficulty as it increases in need.  The more controversial the situation, the more difficult it many times is for the chair to remain impartial.  Yet, that is the time when impartiality is needed the most. 

Remember that the role of the chair is to guide the group through the meeting and to always focus on desires of group, not personal desires.  When doing that, the group is more able to reach a well thought out decision.

There are times when the chair makes the decision that he or she can not remain impartial on a particular issue.  For example, when you see your pet issue going down in flames and you believe you can save it! In that situation, it is best for the person to remove themselves from the chair and have someone who is willing to be impartial to serve as chair. There is nothing wrong with removing oneself from the chair, as long as it is not done too frequently.  It is far better to remove oneself from the chair than to remain in the chair and not be impartial.

This concludes my Guerrilla Guide tactics for more effective meetings series. I hope you have found them helpful in preparing for future meetings.    I will focus on a different subject in my next newsletter.  If you have any suggestions for subjects for future newsletters, please feel free to email me your ideas.   

[top of page]