How can you address this "reincarnation" dilemma? Being a Registered Parliamentarian, I am often asked to give procedural advice on the procedures to re-visit a previous decision, i.e.: The motions to reconsider, rescind, or amend something previously adopted, and the renewal of defeated motions. Such parliamentary advice is appropriate in many cases, but - by itself - it may miss the cause of the problem. To do this, one must ask this question: Why are issues being reincarnated in the first place?

The short answer is this: If an issue you thought was dealt with is reincarnated, there is a good chance your group brought closure to it prematurely. To further elaborate on this answer, it is helpful to make an analogy between the natural evolution of issues and the natural evolution of human beings (the cycle of life), from conception to death, and then possibly reincarnation.

CONCEPTION: The issue arises for the first time during a meeting. For example: While discussing other issues, members complain that office space has become cramped. They suggest that this issue must be addressed soon. However, not enough time is available to deal with it at the meeting, and the group decides to "park" it ("parking" seems to be a less confusing term than "tabling").

BIRTH: The issue is officially scheduled on a subsequent meeting's agenda, with a preliminary analysis of the scope of the problem and some options that can be considered. Discussion ensues and a committee is created to research the issue some more, while considering the group's input.

ADOLESCENCE: A few meetings later, the committee presents options for consideration. For example: re-allocating office space, moving to new premises, and telecommuting. At this stage members tend to behave like adolescents. They are apprehensive, argumentative and protective of their own office spaces. The group recognizes that pushing a decision through now would be unwise. Members are reassured that the decision will not be pushed through too quickly. They then evaluate the options objectively and calmly, without any fear of imminent finality.

MATURITY: By the time a subsequent meeting comes around, the scope of the problem has been identified, and some creative solutions are emerging. Everyone knows they have been heard and that legitimate needs will be accommodated. No one is feeling threatened. Everyone is prepared to place the broad organizational interests ahead of personal or "political" interests. Discussions are civil, rational, and objective. This is the time to make decisions.

OLD AGE (and then death): The issue is moot now. The process by which the decisions were made is used as a model for dealing with future issues which are complex or controversial.

REINCARNATION? Not likely. Not with this kind of a process, which is inclusive, measured, evolutionary, and objective, and which yields smart, credible, proactive and hence durable decisions.

Which brings me back to the issue that just won't go away. Is it back to haunt you because you rushed the decision on it at the conception or birth stage (Perhaps your group acted impulsively to accommodate a small constituency but didn't think about the impact of the decision on the larger community)? Has the issue been reincarnated because your decision was pushed through at the adolescent stage by a narrow majority, which refused to listen with an open mind to minority views?

You may say: This all sounds very good in theory. But what happens when, in reality, a decision must be made now, despite the fact that the issue has not been researched sufficiently, and despite protests by vocal minorities? The answer to this question is another set of questions: Are your meeting agendas more reactive (dictated by crises and things you must do now) or more proactive (driven by long term strategic plans, broken into segments which make their way to meeting agendas)? And: Is your group fragmented (with each person "pushing" personal agendas) or does it work as a team (everyone works together for the good of the organization as a whole)?

The answers to the above questions may point to flaws in the foundation of your shared decision making processes. Address these flaws and the likelihood of responsible and timely closure will increase. Those tough and nagging issues will indeed go way without being reincarnated.

NOTE: The above analogy is drawn from the "The Business Meetings Sourcebook", to be published in July 2002. (See www.elimina.com/books for details on this book)

Eli Mina is a professional meeting chairman, Registered Parliamentarian, seminar leader, and a leading expert on meetings and rules of order. He specializes in chairing contentious meetings, demystifying and humanizing the rules of order, resolving organizational disputes, and shared decision making. Further explore Eli's website for more details on Eli's work and his books. To sign up for his free e-mail newsletter, click here.