What are some common meeting conflicts and how can you handle them?

In my experience chairing and facilitating meetings with diverse groups, I found it is always a good practice to consult with team members regarding agenda items. However, it is most important that the Chair, fully communicates in advance with participants about the rules, and holds the agenda to its purpose. Disruptive discussion, I find, usually comes from someone who has not read any or little of the briefing material provided in advance or is pushing a hidden agenda of this own. A strong Chair is essential.

As a professional facilitator who has done plenty of meetings, all of the comments about the agenda are true re: clarity, priority and results orientation (why are we doing this) including the action that follows. The conflict arises when you try to force an agenda down the throats of a group of unwilling participants. When something pops up in the room that is not on the agenda, usually exploring it and then connecting it to the purpose works. Lateral thinking is applied. Digression is not a bad thing... it often reflects a need to diverge before converging. Second, without conflicting views, groupthink takes place. You need it and you need the skills to embrace it as a valued part of the process.

I like the idea of ground rules and I've found people who believe they are right or have greater authority-over, don't follow the rules. Go for Respect. Air time is distributed among extroverts (who you'll always hear from first) and introverts, who you must create the space for. Communication style is the other variable, particularly in cross-cultural sessions. Airtime used in sound bytes collides with airtime used all at once. The total is usually the same. It is hard for people to listen to a view expressed in 5 minute chunks instead of 30 seconds. Making it very clear that you are aware of the different communication styles can help. Choosing a process with a flat power structure also helps.

There’s something to the sentiment: if the outcomes didn’t get captured in large hand-written letters in a place highly visible to everyone, then the meeting had no outcomes! Of course all the intangible outcomes are overlooked here (relationships, commitment, morale etc) but it’s so true that groups mess up by not explicitly stating and recording the tangible outcomes. Getting on the same page is really helpful as a literal strategy.

Ask ten people in the room and you'll get ten perceptions of the outcome. Meeting minutes will describe what the recorder chose to include or exclude. Frequently there's uncertainty about what happened even though you were in attendance. Outcomes connect to what's next. Where is this going? Unclear, unrealistic, or unacceptable goals reveal a hidden agenda and assessment of what is acceptable. Goals and concerns must be part of the process otherwise you have disputes. Process design must pull in the emotional social needs that drive support for the decision. Clarity on who makes the final decision determines support for the result. Is it one person? Participatory decision-making processes will expose where info is inadequate.