Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:06:12 -0400

From: Richard Montgomery <rmonty@chemmgrs.com>

To: GRP-FACL@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU

Subject: Re: Emotional competence

 

Facilitators live or die on how participants perceive the results of a meeting.

We all  agree on how important it is to set objectives prior to the meeting and

strive to meet them. But, have we ever put together the "Attributes of a Good

Meeting". I suspect that a short list of the common attributes of good meetings

could be built.

 

I'll start the list off with "Acheiving Synergy". It seems to me that the

meeting should produce results beyond the results achieved by individuals.

 

Bernie De Koven wrote:

 

> Odd how difficult it is to bring up "spiritual" issues in a profession which

> is, at its best, a spiritual pursuit.

>

> One of the favorite discussions spawned by my silly little Meeting Meter

> leads invariably to things of the spirit. Talking about the "true costs" of

> a meeting, I often find myself talking about the costs of a "bad" meeting.

> The costs to the organization as a whole. The costs to the individual. Maybe

> I'm using the word in a different light, but it seems to me that the

> greatest costs are to the spirit, to the individual spirit, to the spirit of

> the organization, to the team spirit.

>

> And then when we start talking about the benefits of a "good" meeting, our

> descriptions get even more spiritual. I find myself talking about what

> happens when we go beyond collaboration, into a state of what I've been

> calling "coliberation," where each person helps each to go beyond personal

> limits, where the team spirit frees us from the boundaries of our

> individuality.

>

> Spiritual stuff, it seems to me. The stuff of our very profession, it seems

> to me.

>

> Bernie

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Zenergy <Zenergy@xtra.co.nz>

> To: <GRP-FACL@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU>

> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 6:36 PM

> Subject: Re: Emotional competence

>

> > Ned Ruete wrote

> > >

> > > We may never mention the spiritual stream or the soul in our sessions.

> > > But

> > > a big part of the reason I facilitate is that I think collaborative

> > > work,

> > > divergent thinking, dialogue, action research, all address problems

> > > too

> > > complex to be solved by rational analysis.  In using these techniques,

> > > facilitation engages and strengthens the part of the psyche -- the

> > > soul --

> > > that can address other complex problems we face.  Only a handful of

> > > poets

> > > and artists may recognize explicitly the connection between achieving

> > > exceptional content solutions and the spiritual stream, but it is

> > > there.

> > >

> > > Dale Hunter wrote:

> >

> > Thank you Ned.  Well said. I hesitated to include spiritual and psychic

> > in my  "and more" because I wondered how people in our discussion group

> > would handle this. I would like to share more about it though. How can

> > we do this safely?

> >

> > To unsubscribe send SIGNOFF GRP-FACL to LISTSERV@ALBANY.EDU

> >

>

> To unsubscribe send SIGNOFF GRP-FACL to LISTSERV@ALBANY.EDU

 

--

Dick Montgomery, General Manager

21st Century Cooperative

Midland, MI 48642

Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"

http://www.chemmgrs.com

 

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:45:45 +0100

From: Steve Spreckley <Steve.Spreckley@expro.shell.co.uk>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: [GF] Measuring Meetings Effectiveness

 

Hi Folks...would appreciate some help.

 

As part of a major change process we plan to carry out an "audit" of

our meetings processes. Our starting premise is that meetings are a

microcosm of how we work...hence by reviewing and improving meeting

effectiveness we will get significant additional benefits (we are of

course also looking at a large number of process improvements etc).

 

We currently have meeting ground rules and have a reasonable discipline

in doing the normal after action reviews for most meetings, but my

question is do any of you have any thoughts or experiences of

improvement goals and performance indicators for improving meeting

performance that we can use to frame the project.

 

If anyone is interested in our thinking and proposed approach as always

I will be pleased to share.

 

 

Thanks in advance

 

Steve Spreckley

Aberdeen

Scotland

 

Unsubscribe: Send SIGNOFF GRP-FACL to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU

Subscribe:   Visit http://www.albany.edu/cpr/gf

 

From jomay.verrier@CBH.COM.AU Wed Aug 08 22:08:25 2001

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:22:07 +0800

From: jomay.verrier@CBH.COM.AU

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Measuring Meetings Effectiveness

 

Hi Steve

Thanks for the info on cultural assessments - ours is going ahead with full

support.

 

For Meeting effectiveness, I use a process  called POP - what is the PURPOSE of

the meeting - what OUTCOMES do we want to achieve  in this meeting (worked out

up-front) - and what PROCESSES will we use in the meeting to achieve the

Outcomes.  The meeting Process we use is very much determined by the Purpose and

the Outcomes (for example, if the Purpose is to make a group decision - our

agreed Process will be different than if the Purpose is to 'let people know what

is going on').

 

The measures of effectiveness come from asking the question at the end of the

meeting "Did we achieve our Outcomes?"  If we didn't, we review our Process and

maybe our Purpose.

 

Sometimes the Purpose and Outcomes are very similar - but worth stating (if the

Purpose of the meeting is to share information with other participants, then the

Outcome would be that everyone leaves the meeting with a shared understanding).

 

Hope this helps

Cheers

Jomay Verrier

 

 

 

 

 

 

Steve Spreckley <Steve.Spreckley@expro.shell.co.uk> on 31/07/2001 03:45:45

 

Please respond to Steve.Spreckley@expro.shell.co.uk

 

To:   GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

cc:    (bcc: Jomay Verrier/PTH/CBH)

Subject:  [GF] Measuring Meetings Effectiveness

 

 

 

Hi Folks...would appreciate some help.

 

As part of a major change process we plan to carry out an "audit" of

our meetings processes. Our starting premise is that meetings are a

microcosm of how we work...hence by reviewing and improving meeting

effectiveness we will get significant additional benefits (we are of

course also looking at a large number of process improvements etc).

 

We currently have meeting ground rules and have a reasonable discipline

in doing the normal after action reviews for most meetings, but my

question is do any of you have any thoughts or experiences of

improvement goals and performance indicators for improving meeting

performance that we can use to frame the project.

 

If anyone is interested in our thinking and proposed approach as always

I will be pleased to share.

 

 

Thanks in advance

 

Steve Spreckley

Aberdeen

Scotland

 

Unsubscribe: Send SIGNOFF GRP-FACL to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU

Subscribe:   Visit http://www.albany.edu/cpr/gf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________________

**********************************************************************

The information contained in this message is intended only for the

named recipient(s) and may be confidential and/or the subject of

legal professional privilege.  If you are not the intended recipient,

any use, duplication or distribution of the information contained in

this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in

error,  please contact us immediately via email at email.admin@cbh.com.au

and delete the original message.

 

Web Address: http://www.cbh.com.au

 

This message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of

computer viruses.

 

**********************************************************************

 

Unsubscribe: Send SIGNOFF GRP-FACL to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU

Subscribe:   Visit http://www.albany.edu/cpr/gf

 

From kim@virtualteamworks.com Wed Aug 08 22:08:25 2001

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 05:31:04 -0700

From: kim@virtualteamworks.com

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Measuring Meetings Effectiveness

 

Steve Spreckley asked for "some help... [regarding] ...any thoughts or

experiences of improvement goals and performance indicators for improving

meeting performance."

 

Steve, and others who might be interested, we work with virtual teams and

so our work is with online meetings.  Nevertheless, some of the basic

tenets are the same.  I've attached a list of questions we encourage

virtual teams to ask about their meetings during evaluation.  These may

assist others with face to face meetings.

 

For me, the single most objective and effective predictor of meeting

"performance" (this is a product/task related function rather than a

process/relationship one) is: WHAT IS THE RATIO OF TIME USED FOR

SYNCHRONOUS WORK VERSUS ASYNCHRONOUS WORK?  We have someone unobtrusively

time the meeting and note when the team is doing work that relates to

their reasons for meeting (cocreation and collaboration) and when they

are doing work they could have done before the meeting (read disseminated

information).  This ratio is a powerful way to see how much the team is

working and how much they are wasting.

 

Here is the list of twelve evaluation questions from Dr. Simon Priest's

latest book on Electronic Facilitation of Virtual Teams.

 

[ ] Was asynchronous info. sharing done in advance?

[ ] Was synchronous time used fully for collaboration?

[ ] Was a prioritized agenda created? Was it followed?

[ ] Were all invitees present? Why were some absent?

[ ] Were all on time? Were any latecomers disruptive?

[ ] Did the meeting start and/or finish as scheduled?

 

[ ] Did introductions or conclusions proceed smoothly?

[ ] Did the discussion stay focused? Always on track?

[ ] Did everyone have an opportunity to contribute?

[ ] Were the meeting objectives totally accomplished?

[ ] Did technical problems arise? Were they solved?

[ ] Were proper etiquette or online protocols followed?

 

Good luck with your improvement project.

 

Kimberley Ann Klint, PhD

Vice-President of Operations

CBO, virtualTEAMWORKS.com

 

kim@virtualteamworks.com     http://www.virtualteamworks.com

 

We build virtual teams, develop global leaders, and train electronic

facilitators

using internet experiential learning and online communication

technologies.

 

From alanklink@comcast.net Tue Jul 08 13:43:15 2003

Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:25:56 -0700

From: Alan Kitty <alanklink@comcast.net>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Participant's self-evaluation

 

 

Kathleen

Once upon a time, I routinely asked participants for their opinions

about my efforts in post workshop surveys. I thought this feedback might

be a good way to improve my effectiveness. Recently, I stopped asking.

Responses about their perceptions, assumptions, notions, expectations,

and the effects of the meeting on those things tell me all I need to

know about how well the experience worked for them. It also tells me

quite a bit about how I can help them the next time around. So, I'm

always interested in new, or better ideas.

But in my opinion, my efforts always need improvement - right on the

spot. During a meeting, I constantly check for any indications that

something needs tweaking. Then I ask to verify my sense that this is so;

and drill down until I understand exactly what the situation is. I may

not have an instant remedy; but I will the next time!

AKitty

 

I'm interested in what others may have done in asking participants to

evaluate their own efforts.

 

 

Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:55:48 -0400

From: Alan Kitty <alanklink@comcast.net>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Participant's self-evaluation

 

 

Ned wrote

 

I like to go a few steps farther when I get the chance.  I have found

that

participants in facilitated, participative often don't recognize what

actually happened -- why they got the results they did.  I am a fan of

treating the meeting as a learning experience, and completing the

experiential learning cycle by processing the learning (very much like a

ToP

ORID discussion):

 

What just happened?  Reconstruction

Why did it go like that?  Interpretation

What else might work that way?  Generalization

When and where are you going to try this?  Application

 

Ned-

This type of structure is great. I work with a lot of senior executives;

and I believe they are interested in understanding as much as possible

about these dynamics. They may choose not to fish, but if they

appreciate how it's done, they are more likely to be able and willing to

spread the gospel throughout their organizations.

Akitty

 

 

Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:06:06 -0700

From: Bill Harris <bill_harris@FACILITATEDSYSTEMS.COM>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Participant's self-evaluation

 

"Goldhammer, Lynn A. LCDR" wrote:

 

> knew?  So, I've decided to start tracking the things that people tell me at

> these facilitated events:  one big list of all input received, but also

> broken down by client so while one client might want to spend a lot of time

> talking about a lot of possible issues to address, another might find that

> frustrating when they ID something up front and want to get moving on it.  I

> hope that this approach might better help me meet the personality of each

> group that I have follow-on work with.

 

Hi, Lynn.  Good suggestion; you're formalizing your action

learning/action research process.

 

I've found a local Wiki to be a great way to capture that sort of

information; I use the Emacs Wiki

(http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/EmacsWikiMode).  I can then

publish it to local Web pages and create a process manual/tickler file

for myself.

 

Lotus Agenda (http://home.neo.rr.com/pim/agendadl.htm) is another good,

free tool for that purpose -- arguably even better, at least for

capturing and organizing information in an ad hoc manner.

 

At the risk of overly plugging Bob Williams and my own stuff, I also use

something like http://facilitatedsystems.com/llogs.html or a similar,

simpler form that Shankar Sankaran of Southern Cross University

developed for such purposes.

 

Bill

--

Bill Harris                                  3217 102nd Place SE

Facilitated Systems                          Everett, WA 98208 USA

http://facilitatedsystems.com/               phone: +1 425 337-5541

 

Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:08:25 -0500

From: "Marsh, Brice" <Brice.Marsh@MSFC.NASA.GOV>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Participant's self-evaluation

 

This is offered for what it's worth ... it may or may not fit your

circumstances:

 

This is intended as a collaborative technique for participants to assign

personal values to the take-aways from a group session.

 

We often invite the participants to identify "golden nuggets" or

gemstones/goodies that have potential value as take-aways to be used "back

at the ranch". Using a form of electronic facilitation with GroupSystems,

each participate is urged to "point and click" on their individual golden

nuggets folder to electronically jot down any item that they want to make

sure they do not forget. They are encouraged to do this anytime during each

segment of the collaborative session, even while a presenter is speaking.

 

This approach works equally well for a single segment session of 1 hour or

multi-day sessions consisting of a number of unrelated subject matter

topics.

 

At the end of the session, we consolidate all the golden nuggets, either by

topic or for the entire session, and allow the participants to engage in an

electronic polling activity where they quickly prioritize and pick the "best

of the best" golden nuggets. (Of course, their individual set of private

notes remain unchanged). Thus, we can produce a hard copy of the final group

report of the goodies regarded as most valuable by the entire group; and we

can email each participant's set of private notes so that it is waiting for

them when they return to "the ranch".

 

Many folks have reported that the take-away hard copy report and the email

of their private notes both serve as vivid reminders of the value of the

session. Some have indicated they have incorporated portions from these

items in their trip reports to their superiors upon return to the "real

world".

 

In summary ... we use this electronic method to capture goodies real-time

since each person has a dedicated laptop during the session; and then to

consolidate and prioritize a "best of the best" golden nuggets.

 

This is merely a convenient collaborative "process", but the participants

still retain control of "content".

 

We also do a quick electronic session evaluation before we adjourn and the

"golden nuggets" technique usually gets high marks as a "most valuable" part

of the session.

 

Not every meeting owner is willing to allow folks to engage in this exercise

for fear it will consume too much time. However, those that do quickly

realize that it is actually a very productive investment of time and effort.

 

Brice Marsh

Computer Sciences Corporation

 

Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:04:32 -0700

From: Bill Underwood <bill_u@HOTMAIL.COM>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Participant's self-evaluation

 

Bill Harris wrote:

Hi, Lynn.  Good suggestion; you're formalizing your action

> learning/action research process.

>

> I've found a local Wiki to be a great way to capture that sort of

> information; I use the Emacs Wiki

> (http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/EmacsWikiMode).  I can then

> publish it to local Web pages and create a process manual/tickler file

> for myself.

>

> Lotus Agenda (http://home.neo.rr.com/pim/agendadl.htm) is another good,

> free tool for that purpose -- arguably even better, at least for

> capturing and organizing information in an ad hoc manner.

>

> At the risk of overly plugging Bob Williams and my own stuff, I also use

> something like http://facilitatedsystems.com/llogs.html or a similar,

> simpler form that Shankar Sankaran of Southern Cross University

> developed for such purposes.

 

Just to add to the good online collaboration tools, but not necessarily

free, I have had great results with www.groupmindexpress.com

 

Bill

 

Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 06:50:51 -0500

From: Esther Derby <derby@estherderby.com>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: [GF] Temperature Reading

 

Dale Emery's post on "participant's self-evaluation" thread:

 

For ongoing efforts or lengthy meetings, I like Virginia Satir's

"Temperature Reading."  It can take about an hour, so it's less helpful

for evaluating short meetings.  Here is a brief description:

 

        http://www.dhemery.com/articles/temperature_reading.html

 

I sometimes use the Temperature Reading form for morning news at

multi-day gatherings... I run it for about 10 minutes.  TR gets the new

information out, makes space for people to appreciate each other and

sets a nice tone for the day.

 

I've also been using TR for team update meetings with a team I've been

meeting with for a couple of years.  I get all the information I want

from a work-status meeting, but it comes out in a different way and in a

different tone.

 

Esther Derby

 

 

Esther Derby Associates, Inc.

Technical Editor for STQE

Writer, Consultant, Facilitator:  Insights you can use...

612-724-8114 voice; 612-724-8115 fax

=====================================

Weblog: www.estherderby.com/weblog/blogger.html

 

Think of the best facilitator you have ever observed. 

Why was he or she the best? (3 reasons)

Think of the worst facilitator you have ever observed.

Why was he or she the worst? (3 reasons)

How do you see yourself as facilitator? (3 strengths, 3 weaknesses)

What would you most like to get from this workshop? (3 things)

 

From jan.haverkamp@ecn.cz Mon Sep 15 09:20:48 2003

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 08:59:19 +100

From: Jan Haverkamp <jan.haverkamp@ecn.cz>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Evaluation/Measurement

 

Dear Sue and others,

 

> I am wondering what your best practice is regarding measuring the

> effectiveness of facilitated projects and events.

 

I used to do quite extensive evaluations after facilitated

processes - large question lists, pie-charts to be filled in by

participants, etcetera.

 

My experience (and that of a few of my collegues at the time)

was that it took an awfull lot of time and energy from the group to

deliver the data - it took even more time for us to process the

data - and the outcomes were for over 95% that everything was

fine... On top of that it creates high expectations considering

changes in minor details that - because of their limited influence

on the process - do not deserve so much attention.

 

Basically, evaluations on process (i am not talking here of

productivity evaluations or other stuff), are there to find out the

5% that really should get attention - the 5% from which you can

learn. Plus to give you positive feedback - to keep up motivation.

 

I therefore cut down evaluation to a minimum, using mostly a

combination of go-around (to give people the possibility at the

end of any session to let off steam - a short question to avoid

very long sessions (what were for you the two most remarkable

and the two most disappointing moments? If you need

characterise this workshop / training / event with a colour / animal

/ object from this room, how would you characterise it and why?)

- seldomly very striking things in the negative come up there) and

an anonymously written one - often in one or another form on

three to five positives and negatives. One i like to use very much

is what we call a Snoopy sheet, where participants can fill in

emotions in Snoopy balloons. There are always three or four

remarks that really force you to sit down and think a while.

Another favorite of mine is the "hands and feet on paper" form:

make a drawing of your hands and feet on a large sheet of

paper, write at the left fingers things that could be improved, on

your right things that were great, left foot threats you see, right

foot opportunities (yes - it is a SWOT analysis used as

evaltuation :-) ). The Snoopy is used when i want anonymous

feedback, the hands and feet when i expect interaction synergy

and people are not inclined to keep their opinions for

themselves...

 

You can find the Snoopy sheet on:

 

http://www.zhaba.cz/materials/misc/snoopy.html

 

This combination costs a minimum of time, and leaves the group

with a relatively positive feeling.

 

Greetings,

 

jan haverkamp

 

 

|

| Jan Haverkamp via jan.haverkamp@ecn.cz

|

| Nad Borislavkou 58

| CZ - 160 00 Praha 6

| Czech Republic

|

| tel./fax (home): +420.2.3536 1734

| tel.(office): +420.2.2431 9776

| mobile: +420.603 569 243

|

| e-mail: jan.haverkamp@ecn.cz

|

 

Unsubscribe: Send SIGNOFF GRP-FACL to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU

Subscribe:   Visit http://www.albany.edu/cpr/gf

 

From sschuman@CSC.ALBANY.EDU Mon Sep 15 09:56:12 2003

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 09:16:05 -0400

From: Sandor P Schuman <sschuman@CSC.ALBANY.EDU>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Evaluation/Measurement

 

You can find an article on "Evaluating the Strengths and

Weaknesses of Group Decision-Making Processes" by BBradley Wright

and John Rohrbaugh in _Group Facilitation: A Research and

Applications Journal_, Number 1, Winter 1999, pages 5-13.

 

Unsubscribe: Send SIGNOFF GRP-FACL to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU

Subscribe:   Visit http://www.albany.edu/cpr/gf