Application activities Chairing meetings In discussing chairing skills, I shall be assuming a large meeting of more than ten persons, and a degree of formality in the proceedings. Chairpersons have important duties such as drawing up an agenda and ensuring that it is covered, making clear the terms of reference, knowing and communicating to the meeting the rules and procedures governing its deliberations, ensuring that a minute is taken and circulated and so on. In keeping with the rest of this book, these will not receive much attention here; instead I shall concentrate on the behavioural skills of chairing meetings. FIGURE 12.9 Leadership in interaction analysis questionnaire 1. To what extent did the leader appear competent at keeping the group operating smoothly? Extremely Not at all competent
2. To what extent did the leader appear to keep the group steering towards its goals? Extremely Not at all competent
competent 3. To what extent did the leader come across as identifying with the interests of the group? Extremely high ^ ^ ^ „ ^ ^ Extremely low identification
identification 4. To what extent did the leader initiate (problem-solving) ideas? To a large Not at all
extent 5. How far did the leader set targets for group activity? To a large Not at all extent
6. How well did the leader brief the group on the meeting — its background and purpose? Extremely well -x————x————x————x————x————x- Not at all well
7. Did the leader; Yes No Express acceptance of others' contributions? Encourage others? Discipline others when necessary? Relieve tension with humour? Get others to explore disagreements? Summarise progress? Evaluate the feasibility of ideas that were proposed? Test the consequences of proposed solutions?
Interpersonal skills, as this book has repeatedly emphasised, begin with awareness. For a chairperson, that is quite a tall order. Argyle puts it this way: 'A chairman should be aware of the main processes of behaviour in groups and be able to prevent these processes interfering with the effective working of the committee'.31 More than this, chairpersons should be able to use their knowledge of group and individual behaviour to advance the meeting in its task. Chairing skills can be analysed under five headings: 1. The basics. 2. The sources and uses of the chairperson's own power. 3. Chairpersons' roles- 4. Handling individuals in meetings. 5. Controlling group processes in meetings. Basic chairing skills If you are chairing a meeting, you need to be well prepared, to have anticipated which agenda items will cause problems, and to have allocated time and the agenda order accordingly. You need to prepare ways of introducing agenda items, to make sure that the issues will be described carefully before they are evaluated. As far as possible, you should try to get the meeting to discuss first what processes need to be gone through to reach a decision, or decision criteria. You should try to delay the time when different parties start advocating their preferred solutions, because this can polarise the meeting into opposed camps. It is essential for the chairperson to know — or have a reliable aide who knows — any rules and regulations governing issues to be decided, and any precedents which will advance the discussion. Otherwise a great deal of time can be wasted discussing possibilities which in the end turn out not to be feasible. More than this, precedents and even regulations often embody a surprising amount of wisdom, and save each new meeting reinventing the wheel. When in the chair you must know how to handle issues on which the meeting is getting seriously 'bogged down'. You must be able to recognise which of these can be settled to majority satisfaction by a 'guillotining' procedure, such as a vote; which should be deferred to the next meeting to give members time to think about them; and which should be referred to a subcommittee or working group. Getting this right is largely a matter of experience, but remember that the value of even a little experience can be increased immeasurably if you carefully analyse afterwards what took place and how you performed. In the chair you must be skilled in calling speakers, silencing ramblers, or interrupters, or people conducting 'private' side conversations, summarising, testing for consensus, and performing all these functions in such a way that the meeting will seem to most participants to be fair and to be making progress. Here are some 'lubricating' expressions, which can be used to progress the business of the meeting in the desired way: 1. 'Perhaps I could ask the meeting if they see any objection to the proposal. 'This is a strong 'steer' because it implies that if there are no objections there must be assent to the proposal, or even support for it. 'Steers' have their uses, but should not be overused if you want to seem 'fair'. 2. 'In the absence of a sparkling discussion, could I pick out an item which concerns me.' This enables the ,chatreEi5on-_Ao^c^e^^ii^y^.s8^8;;!^^^?^ initially no comments on an agenda item. The chair's request for discussion of an issue is given more force by the reminder to the meeting that others were probably not well prepared — thus the chair gains power from the fact that he or she was prepared. Ironic humour is used to soften the 'reprimand'. 3. 'A year ago, this committee agreed ...' Referring to past decisions and drawing out the implications of past precedents is a very good way for chairs to steer debate without appearing overdirective. Usually the collective memory of past decisions is very poor, and perusal of old minutes will often yield real gems for use in this way. This technique is open, naturally, to members other than chairpersons. 4. 'We must move on to the next item'; 'I will take two more points on this issue'; 'We must reach a decision on this one now; will someone propose a motion?'. Simply moving the meeting forward in a direct way is frequently necessary. Once you have committed yourself to progressing, you must insist despite some people's desperate attempts to prolong the debate, or you will appear weak. 5. 'Do you wish to push your argument to a proposal?' Challenging a member to put their proposal to the test of a vote can demonstrate to them that, no matter how strongly they feel about the matter, they are not carrying their colleagues with them. The chair is usually in a better position to observe the reactions of others than the speaker is; this is one way of deploying this advantage. Alternatively, the chair can avoid a vote, which can be destructive when it reveals the lack of agreement within a meeting, by noticing the support round the table for the speaker and saying, 'You're getting a lot of nods around the Table — we'll note that.' 6. 'I would like to guide the meeting ...' The chairperson is often privy to relevant information which other members lack, and bringing it forward in this way is legitimate and useful. It is often more acceptable to acknowledge what you are doing openly, as by using this expression, than to attempt to exert influence covertly. Covert influence can lead to loss of trust as others come to think that is what you are always doing, even when you are not. Using power in the chair The chairperson has three sources of power: 1. General acceptance (legitimacy) of their role of controlling discussion and helping the meeting make decisions. 2. Often the chairperson has some authority, based on position, which should be used to achieve the meeting's purposes, not to get their own way. 3. The chairperson is better placed to use body language than anyone else at the meeting. There is no reason for chairpersons to feel inhibited about using their power — research has shown^2 that both the satisfaction participants get from meetings and the FIGURE 12.10 Leading and facilitating FACILITATORS AND LEADERS BOTH FACILITATORS DO AND LEADERS DO NOT LEADERS DO AND FACILITATORS DO NOT
Focus group energy on common tasks Act as neutral servants of the group Take responsibility tor the work of the group
Suggest alternative methods and procedures Protect individuals and their ideas from attack Refrain from evaluating or contributing ideas Take initiatives Where necessary, take charge
Encourage participation
Help the group find the best solution
Co-ordinate pre- and post-meeting logistics
eventual output of the meeting are positively related to how firmly the chairperson controls the meeting. Dissatisfaction and poor performance, however, result from abuse of chairpersons' power, such as the chairperson talking too much, inhibiting free discussion by keeping the meeting going too fast, and failing to provide enough time for the meeting to develop its own solutions; or oversteering by too much use of leading questions and offering suggestions. Chairing roles A good chairperson combines the roles of a facilitator and a leader, and places emphasis according to the needs of the group and the meeting. The differences between the two roles are that, whereas leaders take responsibility for the work of the group, facilitators act as its neutral servant; and whereas facilitators refrain from evaluating or contributing ideas, leaders take initiatives and, where necessary, take control and make decisions. There are, however, many similarities between the functions of facilitators and leaders — for instance, focusing group energy on common tasks and protecting individuals and their ideas from attack. Figure 12.10 sets out the similarities and differences between the two roles. Chairpersons must always take responsibility for activities which both facilitators and leaders perform; but whether they do or do not take initiatives, evaluate contributions and make decisions depends on the meeting they are chairing, and perhaps especially on the maturity of the members of the group composing the meeting at handling the type of task with which the meeting is dealing. Handling individuals m meetings An individual at a meeting is the same person as outside the meeting, but the situation does, undoubtedly, lead to some, perhaps most, people behaving somewhat differently from 'normal'. The tendency to adopt a task-, maintenance- or self-orientated stance has already been discussed. The chairperson, who should, of course, he practising a mix of task and maintenance behaviours, will find that being aware of who is acting which role helps enormously in deciding whom to call as the next speaker, to speed progress with the meeting's tasks, or to pour oil on troubled waters, according to the need at that juncture. Other aspects also need to be thought about: 1. Individuals' rights in meetings. 2. The emotions which may be fuelling individuals' self-orientated behaviours. 3. The tendency to compete rather than collaborate. Individuals' rights in meetings An effective chairperson will assume responsibility for guaranteeing the following rights to individuals: 1. The right to be kept informed of what is going on — especially not to be misled into basing their contributions on premises which are known to be false. 2. The right to have their perspectives receive attention (but not repeatedly, contrary to the wishes of the others present). 3. The right not to be subjected to uncontrolled attacks from others. 4. The right not to waste their time. 5. The right not to be affected by prejudice or discrimination. Women, for instance, often feel under differential pressures in meetings — pressure to speak up, even when they have nothing to say, pressure to keep strictly to the point, even though men feel free to meander. They can often be ignored, even to the point where the chairman will introduce the meeting by saying, 'Good morning, gentlemen', and research has shown that men interrupt women more than they do other men and more than women interrupt men; it can be a continual struggle for women to have their say. The women who cope best with this make their presence felt early in the meeting and have armoured themselves against the implicit pressure coming from male colleagues that being vocal is unfeminine; the others need protection from the chair. Individuals' emotions in meetings In large meetings a great deal of behaviour is affected by emotions (see p. 38), which, because their direct expression is 'illegitimate' there, tend to gain in force as the meeting continues. This often results in people adopting polarised and intransigent attitudes. In seasoned performers these emotions will usually be superficially disguised by a highly 'rationalistic' verbal content and a poker-player's manner: steady voice, impassive features. It is, however, important to identify the primary emotion affecting the behaviour. If you are in the chair, you will have to try to reduce the frustration of those people at the meeting who feel that others are suppressing or failing to understand their position. Fortunately, such meetings often last long enough to let you identify the primary emotions of the main participants: patterns of responses quickly emerge which can be easily analysed, with a little practice, by listening for the emotional underlay as well as the argument. One of the behaviours affected by emotions which is commonly encountered in meetings is defensiveness — people can feel under attack by what is being said, or by the mere fact that discussion on this subject is taking place. They are reading criticism of their past conduct into the situation — criticism which they will certainly see as unfair. They are frustrated by the lack of opportunity to explain or defend themselves openly. To handle defensiveness, a skilled chairperson can bring the issue into the open, especially if the emotion is, as often, based on a false perception of other people's attitudes. 'I think John and Peter may feel that raising this issue in this way amounts to an attack on their work. I certainly don't see it as a criticism, but I think we should discuss it and give them the opportunity to explain how the problem arose.' When clearing the air in this way would be inadvisable, perhaps because some participants are very critical of John and Peter, some reassurance can be given by eye contact, attentive listening to and stroking the defensive persons. Another of the emotions which can influence behaviour is insecurity — some people may feel that their contribution is not worth making, that they will not be listened to, and that they are in sum thoroughly marginal as far as others m the meeting are concerned. This can often be a particular problem in organisations which purport to be democratic, so that 'staff assemblies' or similar gatherings are called, but where status hierarchies in fact prevail, so that low-status members are inhibited from speaking. Not only will these persons' contributions, which may be valuable ones, not be made; but these individuals are also likely to leave the meeting with a diminished sense of self-worth and a resentment of the way they have been treated. In handling insecurity, the chairperson should promote a supportive climate, call for comment from those who are feeling insecure, and if they protest that they have nothing to say, insist gently but firmly that the chairperson wants to hear their views, and 'sit' very firmly on those who may be inclined to ride roughshod over low-status participants or exploit and exacerbate their sense of weakness. A great deal of what is said in meetings serves a self-expressive rather than a functional purpose. Some people really do seem to love the sound of their own voice, or think themselves so clever that anything they say will be worth others listening to, with very little regard for how much what they say is really contributing to the task before the meeting. Often these behaviours do emanate from people who are genuinely quite clever, but their behaviour in meetings is not. To deal with these people, be prepared to silence them as often as it takes for them to get the message that .you are allocating the air time and are not a member of their fan club. Resist the temptation to 'knock' or attack them — if they are clever, you want them to go on contributing, but to be under, not out of, control. A fairly detailed analysis of the sources of aggressive behaviour has been given on pp. 228—9. In meetings, aggressive behaviour is like pride and self-love, and unlike defensiveness and insecurity, in that in the chair your concern is to contain and control the behaviour rather than placate the emotion which caused it. Competitive versus collaborative behaviour I have already noted (p. 539) that behaviour in meetings is more often inappropriately competitive than inappropriately collaborative, and that the real solutions are long term and call for leadership of a high order. Chairpersons handling large meetings should treat inappropriate competitiveness in the same way as inappropriate self-love or aggressiveness: do not indulge it, but move on. Controlling group processes in meetings Conformity pressures can lead to the meeting accepting the first solution offered: the chairperson can prevent this by asking the meeting to consider a second opinion. Dreaming up a reasonable alternative may call for some quick thinking on the chairperson's pan, but even a poor alternative is better than none — it may provoke more thought. Committees are in danger of adopting over-risky solutions to problems because of the 'risky-shift' phenomenon. An alert chairperson will notice if this is happening and point out the dangers, or even, exceptionally, veto the decision. Flagrant or persistent breach of norms by 'deviants' will upset many and reduce the productivity of the time spent in the meeting. While all non-conformity should not be suppressed, beyond a certain point a chairperson must be prepared to slap down those who break the 'rules'. Conflict in large meetings roust be controlled — even minimised. At the very least it must be kept focused on issues, not personalities. SUMMARY Good chairing involves command of a range of basic chairing skills, such as calling speakers, and ensuring an appropriate pace of movement through the agenda. Skilled chairpersons use their power, derived from legitimacy, or authority or body language, to progress the purpose of the meeting; they do not abuse their power to get their own way. Ideally, also, chairs act to guarantee individuals' rights, defuse emotions such as insecurity that may be producing behaviour counterproductive to the work of the meeting, and encourage collaborative, and control competitive, behaviour. Chairs can act either as facilitators or as leaden, according to the situation. Their responsibilities include understanding and controlling group processes. Delegating Delegation is a central function of management. It is necessary to allow the range of work for which managers have responsibility to be carried out; and to enable managers to concentrate on key aspects of their job, to develop subordinates and Box 12.5 . .. managers must accept the need to empower subordinates. They have to understand that staff are looking for vision, not orders, from the top, and that their role is no longer to supervise and motivate employees but to liberate and encourage them to take the initiative when they see a chance to do so. Steve Shirley, founder director of the UK-based FI Group (1992) 'Owner drivers', International Management, October, p. 88. widen their experience, and to train successors. Managers who neglect to delegate or 'cannot' delegate are failing to develop the human resources for which they have responsibility; they also are often forced into a 'firefighling' crisis-ridden style of management because work overload means that problems become critical before they are dealt with. Sometimes an organisation has a policy or approach that places obstacles in the way of managers who want to delegate: for instance, managers are expected to know the details of what is going on in their section, and even small mistakes are held against them. In this kind of case, managers need to sort out with their bosses some arrangement that will allow them to delegate, which is an important part of their job. More often, however, the obstacles are in the manager's own mind: fear of unpopularity resulting from handing out tough assignments, distrust of subordinates' ability to do the job to the manager's perfectionist standards, or conversely, fear that subordinates will be seen to be able to do the job better than the manager. Delegating demands careful planning, to decide what work is to be done, and what can and should be delegated and to identify and match abilities, development needs and potential of subordinates with the delegatable tasks. Not all tasks are suitable for delegation. For instance, if a finely balanced decision needs to be made which would have serious consequences for the entire operation if the wrong choice were made, a manager would be evading their responsibilities to delegate it. Similarly; time pressure can make delegation an inappropriate solution. Equally, the type of workgroup the manager's subordinates comprise needs to be taken into account. If the entire team is young and inexperienced, no matter how enthusiastic, it may not be wise to delegate responsibilities which could well be delegated if a more experienced subordinate were available. Current workloads and performance, and preferences for type of work and direction of development, also need to be considered during the preparation stage. Delegation interviews The next stage is the interview with the subordinate, when the proposal to delegate additional or new responsibilities is put to them. According to Lowy and Finebone33, this is 'the heart of the delegation process. It determines, more than anything else, the outcome of a delegated function. The face-to-face discussion of and assignment of work are central to the process.' Lowy and Finebone suggest that the interaction phase of delegating has three aspects: the informational, the dedsional and the interpersonal. (Their schema in fact follows Minizberg's tripartite analysis of managerial work.) 1. The informational task during a delegation interview is to communicate with clarity what the task or project is and involves, what outcomes are looked for, what standards are expected, what resources are available, and what benefits to the subordinate are likely to flow from successfully undertaking this additional or new responsibility; it is also to receive from the subordinate what their reactions to the proposal are, and how they see themselves developing within this role. 2. The decisional task is to agree with the subordinate that they have accepted the work. Some writers refer to this as contracting, to emphasise the type of commitment that is needed. It is also to agree on the method of work, the nature, means and timing of reporting, and the standards of performance, and to decide on the degree of delegated authority, accountability and responsibility. 3- Elements of the interpersonal aspect include discussing the subordinate's hopes and fears, establishing communication channels through openness, showing respect, reinforcing positive behaviour and high performance, and establishing trust. It is bad practice to conduct the delegation interview and then assume that what was agreed will be implemented without farther effort from the manager. Follow-through is necessary, in case the subordinate has misunderstood any part of the new role he or she is expected to play, or is having difficulty with it. The manager needs to ensure that the subordinate has the resources and authority required to do the job — for instance, that others are informed of the delegated responsibility they have undertaken, and are alerted to the need to supply information, equipment, staff or other necessaries. The manager needs to be readily available to the subordinate, especially in the early days after the delegation comes into effect, to supply needed information, help resolve problems, provide support for initiatives, and encourage and show interest in the subordinate's progress. Gradually, the delegatee should be weaned towards greater independence; like coaching, delegation is a process which moves a learner from dependence to relative independence. Results must be assessed; mistakes should not be made too much of unless they persist, but should be treated initially as inevitable, and simply corrected. The precise plan of the delegation may need to be modified with experience; the subordinate may need to take on more to make sense of the role, or less to have a tolerable workload, or some other modification may be needed. Good performance should, as always, be rewarded. SUMMARY At the heart of successful delegation lies interaction between the manager and their subordinate, during which three tasks must be accomplished: exchange of information; agreement on the scope and nature of the delegation; and establishment of an effective working relationship. OVERVIEW A successful approach to leadership can be underpinned by a knowledge of leadership traits and styles, and an understanding of how to vary your approach according to the task maturity and work motivations of your subordinates. Enacting leadership in face-to-face meetings involves matching subordinate expectations of their leaders, taking responsibility for initiating, structuring and controlling discussions, informing and supporting group members, and evaluating outcomes. Leaders should be team-builders in order to enhance and obtain synergistic outputs from the inputs of their followers: openness in communication and encouraging participation by all are key factors in building the trust needed for team effort, but the leader must also know how to deal with intrateam competitiveness and conflict. A third key factor in building a team is to set goals which reward co-operative efforts and avoid goals which reward competitiveness. Chairpersons need a range of basic chairing skills plus an ability to use the power of the chair to achieve the meeting's goals, and skill in sustaining individuals' rights and handling their emotions, and in regulating group processes in meetings. Successful delegating depends on providing effective leadership face to face, to clarify responsibilities and build working relationships. Questions 1. Which of the following statements are true (T) and which are false (F)? There is no one trait which distinguishes successful from unsuccessful leaders. T F Research into style theories of leadership has shown that the best style combines specific elements of autocratic and democratic styles. T F When a task is urgent and routine and the subordinates are unused to the task, the appropriate leadership style is high task structuring, then delegation. T F 556 INTERPERSONAL SKILLS AT WORK Pay, status and social relationships at work are the main motivators for work. T F To gain acceptance as a leader, how you are seen matters more than how you are. T F To be successful, leaders must be seen by their followers as closely involved with the group. T F To make best use of participative decision making, leaders should interpret all suggestions in a favourable light. T F Sincere feedback, open communication and shared goal setting are key factors in team building. T F Self-managed leadership and spanning leadership are both kinds of distributed leadership. T F A chairperson is better able to use body language than anyone else in a meeting. T F A facilitator does and a leader does not suggest alternative methods and procedures. T F A leader does and a facilitator does not focus group energy on common tasks. T F The interaction phase of delegating has three aspects: the interpersonal, the informational and the decisional. T F 2. Which of the following traits are correlated with success as a leader? (a) Entrepreneurialism. (b) Willingness to absorb uncertainty. (c) The habit of taking responsibility. (d) Intelligence. (e) Self-confidence. 3. What is leadership style? 4. What are the implications of Fernanda's statement in Box 12.1 that 'Leadership is inherent in the relations among individuals, not in the individuals themselves'? Do you agree with the statement? 5. Fiedler defined leadership effectiveness in terms of a group's performance in achieving its goals. How would you define it? 6. Which of the following were mentioned in the text as dimensions of 'situations' thai can affect which is the most effective leadership style? (Choose two.) (a) Maturity of followers in the task. (b) Expertise of the leader in the task. (c) Complexity of the task. (d) Amount of power held by the leader. 7. Discuss the importance to leaders of the following face-to-face skills: (a) Impression management. (b) Communicating. 8. Place a tick in the appropriate box to show which of the following activities you believe to characterise each of the four types of leadership behaviour listed on the left. Supporting others' ideas at random Eliciting support for own ideas Issuing orders Letting the others get on with it
High task/high relationship
High task/low relationship
Low task/high relationship
Low task/low relationship
9. Which of the following advantages does participative decision making offer to leaders? (a) It reduces the problem of control. (b) It increases substitutability of group members. (c) It increases leaders' knowledge of what will be accepted by the group. (d) It improves the quality of decisions. (e) It grooms the leader's successors. 10. Thinking of a particular group you have worked in recently, to what extent was it a team? In particular, to what extent was there mutual trust among members, and to what extent were all members' abilities, knowledge and experience fully used? 11. How does giving feedback to group members contribute to team building? Liaison with other sections. Representing the section on a number of company boards and committees. After a month in the job. White arranges a meeting with T. lies, who monitors the monthly sales, prices, revenue, costs and profits figures for the retail market, and prepares forecasts also for that market. How to proceed with the role-play The class divides into groups of three. Two members of each group are allocated roles, while the third will act as an observer. The roles are: R. White, Manager UK Product Planning and Pricing. T. lies, i/c UK Retail Statistics. The briefs for these roles are confidential, and are therefore given in Appendix 2. The observers receive both briefings. The meeting takes place in R. White's office. 4. This conflict-resolution exercise is set in the corporate finance department of a merchant bank. In the busy administrative support unit there are the following staff members: j. Horrocks, an office manager. B. Piper, an administrative assistant. H. Maddox, a senior secretary. Two other full-time secretaries. J. Horrocks considers himself or herself a progressive and conscientious administrator. S/he maintains a high level of informal discussion with staff about their career development, performance and job satisfaction. As a result of recent discussions with B. Piper and H. Maddox, a potentially complex and counterproductive staff conflict has come to light. Horrocks has called a meeting of the two staff, with himself or herself in the chair, to try to resolve the conflict between them. (a) As a private-study exercise, read carefully the three confidential briefs, for Horrocks, Piper and Maddox, which are given in Appendix 2. Explore what kinds of interpersonal issues are involved in this problem. Consider what the office manager, Horrocks, might do both in the meeting which is about to take place, and outside it, to resolve the difficulties. (b) As a group exercise, this can be used for role-play. All the briefings are confidential, and are given in Appendix 2. 5. To practise, experience and observe those behaviours which are effective and ineffective in a chairing role, the investment analysts' exercise from Chapter 11 can be used, with an additional role-player in the pan ofMr/s Scholl, the team leader, in the Chair. There is no confidential brief for this role, but the player should read the general briefing and the observers' briefings. An additional observer should be deployed to analyse Scholl's chairing skills; his or her analysis should be guided by the leadership in interaction analysis questionnaire given in Figure 12.9.
