| Is
it really necessary to be formal by establishing a speakers' lineup
at a meeting? Why can't a meeting flow informally and naturally and
without the constraining effects of procedure? Why can't the smart
guy who really knows his stuff be allowed to speak as often as he
wants, instead of having to wait in line, when other speakers have 'nothing
intelligent or profound' to add? Isn't it more important to get the
right job done than to follow a democratic process?
These significant and interesting questions are often raised in sessions
on meeting procedures. They raise the concern that democratic decision-making
processes do not guarantee good outcomes, and sometimes, by their mere
presence, help produce bad outcomes. For example, a group that religiously
honors the principles of equality and fairness but is guided by ignorance
and self-interest is not positioned to make the best decisions for the
organization. Said differently: It is important to not only do
things right (i.e.: make sure everyone has their turn to speak
and follows the same rules), but also do the right things.
Here are a few tips for balancing the need to make good collective decisions
with the need to have democratic, fair and inclusive debate:
-
From a "process" perspective, your group should recognize
that the destination you reach is just as important as how
you get there. Groups cannot be effective by making presumably
excellent decisions while trampling on individuals. If they
follow this practice, the fact that an excellent decision was made
would not change the fact that not many will support it, and some
will even seek to undermine it (not because of the decision, but because
of the way it was made).
An analogy to consider is a train getting to an exciting destination
with almost no passengers on board, because many have jumped off along
the route. Such an outcome would make decisions meaningless, even
if they are good. True, in a corporation many employees will follow
the CEO despite being ignored or trampled upon. Many will stay on
because they want to keep their jobs, and the way they are treated
may be secondary for them. But in governmental or non-profit sectors,
a flawed process that leaves people behind breeds resentment and mistrust.
Good members become disillusioned and may leave and go to a place
where they are valued and respected.
The bottom line is that if you let one very knowledgeable
individual dominate a meeting, while not creating a level playing
field for others to speak, you may have lost a few people, and,
regardless of how right the outcome may be, your organization
cannot afford to lose partners in the decision-making process (even
if someone thinks their comments may not smart).
-
Resist the temptation to assume someone is ignorant. An individual
may not have the technical knowledge of an expert, but he or she may
have unique non-technical observations that may shed new light on
a complex and multi-faceted issue. Such insights may end up having
greater significance than technical data. They should never be discounted
before being heard, and no one person should be presumed to have a
monopoly over truth or virtue. Arrogance and conceit do not belong
at a decision-making table.
-
To prevent ignorant participation, every member should be brought
up to a common base of knowledge prior to a meeting. This way all
members will participate with at least some knowledge and be able
to make intelligent comments.
-
Having said all of the above, there are indeed times when too much
formality is counter-productive. Sometimes it is indeed needed to
let an expert speak several times without having to wait in a speakers'
lineup. If the discussion is confusing and the fifth person in line
can help the group achieve clarity and save time, the group should
waive the rules and hear the person without delay. Your group should
know when to be structured and formal, but should also learn to recognize
when the structure is constraining. Rules of order are a means to
an end, and not an end in itself. The group should allow itself to
waive the formality when needed.
For example, if there seems to be a need for a free flowing discussion,
your Chair can ask: "Is there any objection to waiving the
speakers' lineup and allow a free flowing discussion with our lawyer
for 15 minutes? (Pause) There being no objection, John, you're
our technical expert. The floor is yours." So don't be a
slave to the rules. Waive them with the group's consent.
- Keep in mind that it is possible to facilitate an effective discussion
without a formal speakers' list, as long as the group pays attention
to whether some members may have jumped off the train. This
way the rule would be enforced based on need, rather than automatically.
|
