Bigger meetings
Nov 15 2006 08:23
We've been having the odd problem with meetings that hit 15 people or more, in that it can be difficult to communicate, more people are left sitting on topics which are non-specific to them, and inevitably there is a bit of talking between mates and not paying attention going on. This is somewhat exacerbated because facilitators tend to piss people off if they're too harsh/controlling. It can also put off new members because inclusivity and the tendency to encourage them to participate is blunted because a great deal of information is having to be shared in the course of a meeting.
So, how to organise larger meetings most efficiently? Thoughts?
Nov 15 2006 10:34
#2
Nah in the scheme of things it’s pretty small (I’m mainly talking big for a regional grouplet), but they’re regular meetings (as opposed to larger ones for a specific purpose everyone’s organising on together for example) so there’s a lot of stuff which is not directly relevant to people, so with the best will in the world the tendency is to stop paying attention and if it goes on long enough then people might well talk aside briefly a similarly unaffected mate – and hey presto, mild disruption.
Again, part of the problem is that some of the longer-term members know each other quite well and so that tendency is also exacerbated by not wanting to be put down in front of your mates…
Nov 15 2006 10:34
#3
Depends what sort of meeting you are talking of but when we hit approx. that figure (I think 19) in Dublin WSM and had the same problems we decided the time had come to split into two branches.
Nov 15 2006 10:44
#4
I think all stuff that is not a group issue that's going to take a while should be mentioned and then those that are interested should sort it out among themselves (maybe after the main meeting). Maybe that'd be a call for the facilitator.
As far as people talking amongst themselves - if they're people you know, you can just ask them to stop disrupting meetings. If they're worried about getting told off in front of their mates, maybe they should be growing up rather than posing as anarchists.
Nov 15 2006 10:53
#5
rich wrote:
As far as people talking amongst themselves - if they're people you know, you can just ask them to stop disrupting meetings. If they're worried about getting told off in front of their mates, maybe they should be growing up rather than posing as anarchists.
Exactly!
If you've got a problem with being told to take part in a meeting and stop disrupting it, why are you there in the first place?
Nov 15 2006 10:59
#6
Bit harsh rich, no-one should be humiliated in front of friends, even if it’s in the cause of greater efficiency, except as a last resort. Breeds resentment if nothing else, I’d tend to favour talking one-on-one afterwards to avoid that.
We have had some success in splitting the meeting into two sections, first for independent satellite projects (eg. housing co-op, swapshop, EASF when it’s our turn), second for quick updates on said projects and organising of group-wide projects. Problem we’ve found with that is over time the most enthusiastic on a particular project tend to end up doing steering group type stuff, thus risking it becoming an independent project even if it wasn’t to start with and sometimes necessitating some recuperation of functions back into the main meeting, with an immediate effect of introducing activities which some members aren’t involved with...
Yeah there has been some discussion of having parallel meetings (the café area we meet in has plenty of room for expansion) of two groups but then there’s potentially the problem of going back to running separate projects with not enough people to be properly effective in either.
Nov 15 2006 11:01
#7
Splitting the meeting and running parallel strands on different things with a brief report back after is quite useful - makes them shorter as well, in theory at least. It depends on whether you've got a room (or ideally two rooms) big enough to do this in, though. The other way is putting definite time limits on things in advance so that people know they can nip outside during something that doesn't concern them, although in my experience these never run properly without really strict facilitators, which runs all the risks of pissing people off that you mention.
Nov 15 2006 11:03
#8
Jack wrote:
rich wrote:
As far as people talking amongst themselves - if they're people you know, you can just ask them to stop disrupting meetings. If they're worried about getting told off in front of their mates, maybe they should be growing up rather than posing as anarchists.Exactly!
If you've got a problem with being told to take part in a meeting and stop disrupting it, why are you there in the first place?
A phrase I've found useful when chairing such meetings is, "One meeting, comrades, one meeting." 
Nov 15 2006 11:18
#9
Can't things be mandated (by the main group) to certain groups to carry out?
One issue that makes catch all groups so difficult to organise is the massive variety of stuff going on to organise (and it's constantly changing). I think delegation is the best way. The people who've been delegated can still make requests of the rest of the group: generally the core organising is a hell of a lot easier with a smaller group of people (or at least more ideologically consistent group of people).
It also raises questions about people on the periphery of anarchist groups that I'm too lazy to raise at the moment, and probably deserve their own thread.
Just in case there is any confusion: I think that obviously we shouldn't humiliate people in front of their friends except as a last resort. However, I think there has to be some kind of public, collective statement if talking to individuals isn't working. But yeah delegation, delegation, delegation!
Nov 15 2006 11:18
#10
Also, you don't really need to be a nob about it - I mean I go off topic a bit, and I don't care in the slightest if I'm told to stay on topic - tbh I'd rather that than to just be left to do it and have people think I'm a dick who can't keep to a meeting!
I mean if you have an okay chair, who people respect, usually just saying "can we keep to the meeting please" (even w/o explicitly naming names) works perfectly fine.
Nov 15 2006 11:29
#11
i find hitting people with a wet fish a great help.
Nov 15 2006 11:31
#12
Quote:
I mean I go off topic a bit, and I don't care in the slightest if I'm told to stay on topic
Depends on the individual I think – bear in mind you’ve been in groups demanding that sort of discipline for a while now. I mean I don’t really care too much about being told to shut up (I’m used to it 
) but some people do and can take it badly, especially around mates, and telling them not to be so sensitive about it may not elicit a helpful reaction. I think a better response can be learned, but when a group’s growing and new people are coming in, especially several at a time, there’s often precious little scope for that kind if thing.
I’d reckon this is the other big thing about groups reaching a certain size, is the number of people rises high enough that it’s difficult to individualise responses properly and get everyone on the same page – people can come in with a load of baggage about how they respond in group situations (eg. loud and domineering, reticent and observant) and growth can mean that these people don’t get the kind of personal attention they need to integrate.
Nov 15 2006 11:44
#13
Hm, well could you put it as an agenda item on the next meeting about 'meeting discipline' and have a discussion about it, say why it's important, get everyone in agreement and involved, make it clear it's not done as a personal attack etc. etc.?
I also would have thought that there is gonna be some correlation between a culture where being 'disciplined' is somewhat alien and one where people are more likely to talk in meetings? Obviously my ultra pro-organisation politics are gonna come into this, but the problem you're describing seems more a cultural one.
If people aren't going to take being disciplined (as well as self disciplining, obviously) then any other measures just seem like a band-aid to the symptom and aren't really tackling the cause.
Nov 15 2006 11:45
#14
Making the troublesome people (within reason, of course, they still have to be committed, say) facilitator can help, if you give them some guidelines on being a facilitator. It could let them see what everyone else is having to put up with...
Nov 15 2006 11:50
#15
Chair, not facilitator. 
Only being half-flippant here - I think the whole 'facilitator not chair' thing is kind of tied up with crappy anarchist attitudes to being organised in meetings and stuff.
Nov 15 2006 11:55
#16
What's wrong with facilitator?
Nov 15 2006 12:01
#17
In theory, nothing. However, in practise (as far as I've experienced) chairs are usually much 'stronger' than facilitators - which I think is much more democratic, much more likely to get everyone involved, and stops 'big personalities' dominating the meeting.
Also, everyone knows what a chair is, whereas only anarchists, radical liberals and diversity training schemes talk about 'facilitators'.
Altho, that said, I think most every group I've been in, including where there has been a chair (and including where I've chaired stuff) could pretty much always have done with stronger chairing. I mean there's obviously a difference between a strong chair and a stitch up (and I don't really think it's a 'slippery scale', I think there's an obvious and qualitative difference) - while you can't just force people along the lines the chair wants to go, if people are taking a meeting off a democratically drawn up agenda, they need to be (politely) shut up!
Nov 15 2006 12:06
#18
Quote:
(as far as I've experienced) chairs are usually much 'stronger' than facilitators
you obviously haven't experienced me as a facilitator yet
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA
but i see your point. sometimes inexperienced facilitators can let meetings go a-rye because they're not firm enough. i learnt that the hard way
Hmmm, well I've been to some quite big meetings, and I've facilitated a couple of about 40-odd.
I wouldn't say 15 was very big! People should not be having private conversations in meetings that small, I don't really see what facilitators can do than shut them up. Not rudely but asking them if they can keep private discussion until afterwards. If it's a few problem people doing it every time then people who care about the group or whatever should have words with them.
Facilitators can take special care to get new or quiet-seeming people to give their opinions; the odd go-round can help people get used to having their voice heard. But yeah if people are having private chats with their mates new people won't bother.