Rather than voting or consensus I prefer consent. This is done in a round, asking the question, “Do you have any paramount objections to this proposal?” An objection is paramount if the proposed policy would keep the person and/or the group from accomplishing their agreed-upon aim(s). (That assumes that the group has an agreed-upon aim(s), so sometimes getting that is the first step.) The facilitator asks anyone who has an objection to state what their objection is. When all the objections have been listed – without discussion at that point – the group then owns all the objections and addresses them to see if they can come up with a proposal with which everyone can live. The group has reached consent when there are no remaining paramount objections. Rather than trying to get agreement, the point is to surface objections to improve the proposal. This ensures that all perspectives are taken into account, since different people may be playing different roles and/or looking at the issue from different perspectives, and no one’s voice can be ignored. (There are other steps before the consent round – to develop the proposal in the first place and to make sure that the meaning is clear to everyone. That would be a longer comment….)

Rather than voting or consensus I prefer consent. This is done in a round, asking the question, “Do you have any paramount objections to this proposal?” An objection is paramount if the proposed policy would keep the person and/or the group from accomplishing their agreed-upon aim(s). (That assumes that the group has an agreed-upon aim(s), so sometimes getting that is the first step.) The facilitator asks anyone who has an objection to state what their objection is. When all the objections have been listed – without discussion at that point – the group then owns all the objections and addresses them to see if they can come up with a proposal with which everyone can live. The group has reached consent when there are no remaining paramount objections. Rather than trying to get agreement, the point is to surface objections to improve the proposal. This ensures that all perspectives are taken into account, since different people may be playing different roles and/or looking at the issue from different perspectives, and no one’s voice can be ignored. (There are other steps before the consent round – to develop the proposal in the first place and to make sure that the meaning is clear to everyone. That would be a longer comment….)

This distinction can also help select who is invited. If it’s a meeting, who has information deliver and who needs to receive the information? If it’s a work session, who needs to contribute to or approve the work product? One source of frustration is to combine meeting-style items and work session-style items in the same agenda. That often leads to invitees who are only needed for some of the agenda items.

I suggest that you suggest these ground rules:
Our company values will be followed at all times during the meeting.
Active participation by all is needed, encouraged and supported by the group.
Respect for others’ ideas and opinions, and civil discourse is a continuous expectation.
All ideas within the scope of the discussion are welcome.

Personally, I believe meetings should be the last resort. They take up time (I list the unavoidable time-wasting aspects below). Most meetings are just for show, anyway: After the meeting, Betty and David are going to get together in Betty’s office and make the real decisions.

I think the more valuable skill is to learn who has what roles in your organization: who makes the decisions, who carries them out, who needs to be informed, who is happy with whatever is decided – so long as a decision is made, who is unhappy with whatever is decided and needs to feel important – to the point where they will derail the process just to assuage their ego unless they are allowed to feel like they’ve had some input, and who doesn’t want to be bothered.

To be effective in your organization, truly effective, you need to know what everyone DOES. By that I mean, not their job titles or HR job descriptions, but what their words and deeds cause to happen in the company. Collandra may be a Sales Manager, but she may the first one that the President calls to get input about the tone of company.

It’s important to remember that some people have more influence precisely because they don’t have a particular lofty title. With titles come visibility, and with visibility comes a need to be more conservative in one’s apparent decisions and actions. Someone with a lower title and less “face” to lose can take more radical action, if necessary. I’m not talking about hidden agendas, though they do exist, I’m pointing out that the org chart doesn’t necessarily show how the organization really runs, and the webs of interaction between people cannot really be influenced in a meeting.

********

There is sooo much time taken up by the necessary processes of having a meeting: the physical reality of moving people into a room, getting everyone settled, letting them have their social-primate time, getting their attention, making sure they have all read the agenda, getting their attention again, writing things on the whiteboard, clearing the whiteboard when the next topic comes up, ending the meeting, moving people out of the room, including the laggards who want to discuss some of the topics more among themselves, etc.

After my ranter opened up, I made a point in the first couple of meetings where I was the lead to provide an agenda ahead of time. Interestingly, that made his rants circle back to all the agenda topics in turn. So I have learned, that once he has voiced his opinion on, say agenda item 1, I listen for a deep breath from him, the start of a second set of opinions on agenda topic 2, and jump in with something along the lines of “hey you are seeing ahead, lets make sure person x weighs in and then we’ll start that topic”. And I do follow through and ask him directly if he has any further thoughts before we move on. After I did that a couple of times, it was like he relaxed and realized I do value his input. Now I rarely hear rants from him when I am the lead, and when I do, they are at the beginning of the meeting, and all I have to do is wait for that deep breath and jump in once. After that, it is like he remembers he will get a chance to voice his opinion, if any, on all the agenda topics when I am the lead and so talks only briefly and to the point.

A combination of making sure the soapboxer feels safe, you feeling safe and structure that keeping interrupting a long-winded person to move a meeting on totally non-personal – like sticking to the agenda should help.

A final thought…watch out for jokes and any sort of gossip about the soapboxer. Different guy than above, very long-winded, very sweet guy with a long institutional memory. A joke was made about him, and several other staff, at a party. He heard about it and kept repeating the catchphrase of the joke at the start of every conversation. Took me a few times of hearing it and seeing him to realize how much it had upset him. It made him come across in meetings as even more strident and forceful and completely out of control.

I have also used a parking lot (for great ideas that are untimely or not on the agenda). The idea is put on a Post-it note and parked until the last item on the agenda. Then it can be dealt with.