I like this: “So many meetings could be done away with if companies simply gave proper levels of discretion to people on the front line.”

Yes! Things hum when people can redesign their own work processes, monitor them on their own, and improve them without being asked. I have a client who began a continuous improvement effort three years ago. Originally, I interviewed their very disgruntled customers. On and off in the time since, they contracted with me to provide coaching. Just last week, they asked me to re-interview the customers. They were falling all over themselves in praise of the staff’s service, responsiveness, turnaround time. This is the magic. Yet so many managers use fear, instead. Meetings, then, are occasions for hiding information, covering, avoiding. They are not just unhelpful; they are a chronic illness.

Thanks for your response. I’m happy to know of this site.

~Trudy

I think that I’ve got at least 5 different types of meetings discussed here. I was sloppy in my thinking about it. Each different type has to be run differently. And “run” need not imply the need for either a leader or a facillitator.

I hope that this did convey the idea that everyone’s work, at any level and any paygrade, must have dignity, worth, creativity and discretionary decision-making. So many meetings could be done away with if company’s simply gave proper levels of discretion to people on the front line. But it seems I was talking about work then suddenly talking about community life, and likely thinking about Protestant church meetings.

You’re making some good points here.

I think that to any situation we bring a full range of vulnerabilities, and “hierarchy” is one way to structure that uncertainty. If we want equality, we have to create it consciously. Key ingredients are trust and safety. In my experience, these too are never really “accomplished;” they must constantly be renewed.

I do a lot of work with labor-management teams. One half of the group in any room are working people, mostly “blue collar.” The other half are managers, mostly mid-level and upper, earning far more than the “blue collar” people. Our task is to function as equals for one hour at a time. The longer term task is to build a true community of interests.

I don’t believe that the facilitator has to score high on “control” in order to create these conditions, nor does the official leader. It is more a matter of expert facilitation and a group commitment to groundrules (which, like trust and safety) must constantly be renewed. So much the better if the facilitator has a deep respect for individuals regardless of their outer social status! That person finds it a lot easier to create trust and safety. It’s that, more than simple “control” that is powerful in building a group through those “stages of group development.”

The leader in any group is in the unique position of being able to create safety. The only way to do that is consciously, with a grasp of what goes into creating a safe space and a sense of common purpose. If the leader indulges other needs (superiority, dominance, etc.), that sense of community is hard to maintain.

While strata and status are always present to some degree, I believe there is also a better impulse, which we can reach, if we bring consciousness and skills. It’s tough to create and sustain community. But to do so, groups must develop a consciousness of patterns and a commitment to altering them. This level of skills and intention transcend the lazy default of dominance and submission, and “strata.”

that’s my $.02 worth.

Trudy Cooper