Long time no write. Somewhere between Writer’s Block and despair at the surging stupidity seen in all directions. Plus nursing my aching ankle and visiting Liechtenstein on a new ADRg Ambassadors training expedition.

The roleplays in Liechtenstein included a couple of exercises where chairing a meeting was part of the skill. The great thing about delivering training is that you think – perhaps for the first time ever – about why you do what you do, and what works (or not).

Thus chairing a meeting.

The smart way to get results is to define the issues in a positive, light-touch style right at the start, thereby (in effect) ruling various options in, but also implicitly ruling some out. If this is done well, the chair can shape the way the participants themselves look at what is happening.

A good way to start is to say in a very few words what the meeting needs to achieve – and why that achievement matters (obliquely flattering the others present). Then you try to sum up in literally a few words what the key issues are:

Can we agree up front that we need to sort out three things today?

First, Money – how much are we all prepared to put in to the new projects?

Second, Balance – how to divide the available resources between the different priorities. The tricky problem here is the fact that it is much easier to get anything done in country X, but the needs in country Y are much greater.

And third, Leadership. Who will be the figurehead of the project as a whole, and who will have the lead operational responsibility?

Some of the participants may want to add another element (say Urgency, or Security, or Other Partners). Fine. The advantage of the chair spelling out in such simple terms the core questions is that it makes it easier for others to frame/articulate their own concerns in a similarly direct way.

Another skill of a good chair is ‘pocketing progress’. If someone makes a concession, go out of the way to say that that move is welcome/helpful. Having done that, be careful about seeking clarification on points of detail: that may give the person concerned the opportunity to backtrack.

Don’t ignore ‘good listening’ skills. Copious notes should not be taken by the chair. The chair should be adept at ‘reframing’ what a participant has said, again subtly steering the conversation in a helpful and constructive/consensual direction and recalling the key words used at the start:

I think what I’m hearing from you is a willingness to be flexible on Money in return for a greater share in the Leadership. Is that a fair summary? 

Also reflect back their ‘intensity’. If someone is getting agitated, a good chair should not sit back and smirk but rather show by body language and tone of voice that that person’s opinions are being heard:

It’s clear that you’re very unhappy with how we are tackling Balance. Has anyone any suggestions for how those concerns might be met?

The plan, in other words, is to build a momentum of general goodwill and cooperation, then – having got everyone in some sort of positive frame of mind – start to nail down more controversial details.

All much easier said than done. See eg the skills needed to chair an EU Summit meeting on a new Eurozone Treaty when things get really difficult.