Strategies for Facilitating Meetings by Type

Now that we have outlined common principles for facilitating meetings, let’s look at how these techniques work when facilitating two of the most common meeting types in formal business settings, status update and problem-solving meetings. 

Status Update Meetings

Recall from our earlier discussion, one of the key purposes of a status update meetings is for all attendees to receive an update on where things are in a process, project, or event; and to hold each other accountable on next steps towards their intended deliverables. When running a status update meeting, structure the meeting to ensure information can be shared fully and efficiently.

One simple technique to encourage active participation by members is to follow the following format:

1. Ask members to indicate what they have accomplished thus far, and since the least meeting. Be sure to inquire about specific milestones particularly if the member is being held to certain deadlines for deliverables. 

2. Ask members to indicate what they plan to do next. This can be especially helpful if the member does not seem to be making progress towards the end goal. Be sure to seek specific action steps for deliverables rather than accept vague descriptions of progress. 

The communication skills used during status update meetings are important to ensure members feel comfortable sharing their progress with others. This is particularly crucial when there is a status difference between attendees. When members share next steps, the job of facilitator is to make sure they are also comfortable communicating any barriers or challenges they might be facing. The inclusion of barriers should be a natural outcome of the discussion. 

When an individual communicates a potential barrier, it is important to keep the discussion open to allow for honest feedback. It is a good idea to include time to discuss barriers as each individual provides his or her update, or table the barrier for later in the meeting.

If the challenges and barriers identified are complex or not easily resolved, it may be useful to refer to the list of challenges to generate an agenda for a problem-solving meeting. 

Problem-Solving meetings

There are several variations of similar problem-solving models based on US American scholar John Dewey’s reflective thinking process (Bormann & Bormann, 1988). You may consider many of the steps described below to be fairly straightforward, and things we would logically do when faced with a problem. However, taking a deliberate and systematic approach to problem solving has been shown to benefit group functioning and performance. A deliberate approach is especially beneficial for groups that do not have an established history of working together and may only be able to meet occasionally. Although a group should attend to each step of the process, group leaders or other group members who facilitate problem solving should be cautious not to narrowly follow each element of the process or force a group along. Such a lack of flexibility could limit group member input and negatively affect the group’s cohesion and climate.

Step 1: Define the Problem

Define the problem by considering the three elements shared by every problem: the current undesirable situation, the goal or more desirable situation, and obstacles in the way (Adams & Galanes, 2009). At this stage, group members share what they know about the current situation, without proposing solutions or evaluating the information. Here are some good questions to ask during this stage: What is the current difficulty? How did we come to know that the difficulty exists? Who/what is involved? Why is it meaningful/urgent/important? What have the effects been so far? What, if any, elements of the difficulty require clarification? At the end of this stage, the group should be able to compose a single sentence that summarizes the problem called a problem statement. Avoid wording in the problem statement or question that hints at potential solutions. For example, a small group formed to investigate ethical violations of city officials could use the following problem statement: “Our state does not currently have a mechanism for citizens to report suspected ethical violations by city officials.”

Step 2: Analyze the Problem

During this step a group should analyze the problem and the group’s relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the “what” related to the problem, this step focuses on the “why.” At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty. Group members may also want to begin setting out an agenda or timeline for the group’s problem-solving process, looking forward to the other steps. Here are two examples of questions that the group formed to address ethics violations might ask: Why doesn’t our city have an ethics reporting mechanism? Do cities of similar size have such a mechanism? Once the problem has been analyzed, the group can pose a problem question that will guide the group as it generates possible solutions. “How can citizens report suspected ethical violations of city officials and how will such reports be processed and addressed?” As you can see, the problem question is more complex than the problem statement, since the group has moved on to more in-depth discussion of the problem during step 2.

Step 3: Generate Possible Solutions

During this step, group members generate possible solutions to the problem. Again, solutions should not be evaluated at this point, only proposed and clarified. The question should be what could we do to address this problem, not what should we do to address it. Brainstorming refers to the quick generation of ideas free of evaluation, and is a popular method for generating ideas during group problem-solving.

Although common, most people do not have a good understanding of the brainstorming process; and therefore, often fail to follow the recommended strategies for a successful brainstorming session. The originator of the term brainstorming states the following four rules must be followed for the technique to be effective (Osborn, 1959):

1. Evaluation of ideas is forbidden.

2. Wild and crazy ideas are encouraged.

3. Quantity of ideas, not quality, is the goal.

4. New combinations of ideas presented are encouraged.

The video below shows a typical brainstorming session that might take place at work. Notice how the group self-corrects in order to follow brainstorming rules and keep the discussion on track. 

It is perfectly acceptable for a group member to question another person’s idea by asking something like “What do you mean?” or “Could you explain your reasoning more?” Discussions at this stage may reveal a need to return to previous steps to better define or more fully analyze a problem. Since many problems are multifaceted, it is necessary for group members to generate solutions for each part of the problem separately, making sure to have multiple solutions for each part. Stopping the solution-generating process prematurely can lead to groupthink. For the problem question previously posed, the group would need to generate solutions for all three parts of the problem included in the question. Possible solutions for the first part of the problem (How can citizens report ethical violations?) may include “online reporting system, e-mail, in-person, anonymously, on-the-record,” and so on. Possible solutions for the second part of the problem (How will reports be processed?) may include “daily by a newly appointed ethics officer, weekly by a nonpartisan non government employee,” and so on. Possible solutions for the third part of the problem (How will reports be addressed?) may include “by a newly appointed ethics commission, by the accused’s supervisor, by the city manager,” and so on.

Step 4: Evaluate Solutions

During this step, solutions can be critically evaluated based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Once the potential solutions have been narrowed based on more obvious differences in relevance and/or merit, the group should analyze each solution based on its potential effects—especially negative effects. Groups that are required to report the rationale for their decision or whose decisions may be subject to public scrutiny would be wise to make a set list of criteria for evaluating each solution. Additionally, solutions can be evaluated based on how well they fit with the group’s goal and the abilities of the group. To do this, group members may ask, “Does this solution live up to the original purpose or mission of the group?” and “Can the solution actually be implemented with our current resources and connections?” and “How will this solution be supported, funded, enforced, and assessed?” Tensions and conflict may naturally emerge during this step of problem-solving, and group members will need to employ effective critical thinking and listening skills.

Decision making is part of the larger process of problem solving and it plays a prominent role in this step. While there are several fairly similar models for problem solving, there are many varied decision-making techniques that groups can use. For example, to narrow the list of proposed solutions, group members may decide by majority vote, by weighing the pros and cons, or by discussing them until a consensus is reached. Once the final decision is reached, the group leader or facilitator should confirm that the group is in agreement. It may be beneficial to let the group break for a while or even to delay the final decision until a later meeting to allow people time to evaluate it outside of the group context.

Step 5: Implement and Assess the Solution

Implementing the solution requires some advanced planning, and it should not be rushed unless the group is operating under strict time restraints or delay may lead to potential harm. Although some solutions can be implemented immediately, others may take days, months, or years. Before implementation, groups should also determine how and when they would assess the effectiveness of the solution by asking, “How will we know if the solution is working or not?” Since solution assessment will vary based on whether or not the group is disbanded, groups should also consider the following questions: If the group disbands after implementation, who will be responsible for assessing the solution? If the solution fails, will the same group reconvene or will a new group be formed?

Certain elements of the solution may need to be delegated out to various people inside and outside the group. Group members may also be assigned to implement a particular part of the solution based on their role in the decision making or because it connects to their area of expertise. Likewise, group members may be tasked with publicizing the solution or “selling” it to a particular group of stakeholders.