Tips for Effective Meetings

Based on the GIS Task Force Experience - 2005

(GIS members are: Sue Erickson, Rick Stringer-Hye, Amy Stewart-Mailhot, Rahn Huber, Rachel Vacek, Sharon Weiner, and Brian Christens)

MANAGEMENT

• Library management’s mission for the Task Force was to “explore GIS for Vanderbilt” which gave the Task Force an open approach and the creative freedom to address the topic.
• Limits and preconceived ideas were not imposed. Therefore we were able to think openly about possibilities and approach the topic with a "what if...." attitude.
• We reported regularly to management on our progress and goals while being informative about what to expect from us. In this way, we opened a dialog for feedback which included management in our progress.

ORGANIZATION

• The Task Force’s mission to investigate GIS was broad in nature. We then developed an agenda based on what we believed was achievable in the amount of time we had.
• Having a rotating responsibility for scheduling and running the meetings meant that everyone was involved and responsible; no one person bore the burden of organizing and leading the group.
• Having shared responsibility set the tone for the group so that everyone shared responsibility for the work that needed to be done.
• These methods created a genuinely cooperative culture in the group.
• We discussed what were realistic outcomes for the group given the members’ other responsibilities. That decision drove our efficiency as everyone valued each other's time as well as their own.
• All action items created in a meeting were assigned before each meeting was adjourned. It propelled us forward to make progress on each action and in the project overall. If anything ever fell through the cracks (and it very rarely did), it was only because we overlooked assigning an action item.
• Early in the Task Force’s formation, we set the goal of having a report delivered to management by Spring 2005.
• The final report began as a rough outline of what was needed. As we worked to populate the report, adjustments were made as needed. This happened midstream while gathering needed data and research.
• The Task Force met in the Science/Engineering Library and took advantage of the electronic classroom and projection technology to write and edit the report as a group. This saved time and facilitated group discussion.
• We had a goal of moving through the objectives quickly without letting quality suffer. We stepped back when we realized our ideas were getting ahead of us and beyond what we could accomplish (i.e. deciding that we did not need to do in-depth research on comparable institutions for Phase One).

GROUP DYNAMICS

• For the effectiveness of the team, it was imperative that the group mind set be agreeable, positive, and that all members consciously chose to believe the best of others.
• We recognized the contributions and experience that each person brought to the table. We capitalized on each person's strengths and learned from each other in the process.
• Problem solving discussions were succinct and diatribes were avoided.
• Egos were checked at the door; no one person was considered the “expert.”
• Everyone’s ideas were welcomed; we did not work to have unanimity (everyone of “one mind”). We listened, made a decision, and moved on.
• Negative feedback from the group was accepted well and no one took offense when a suggestion wasn’t accepted.
• The group became committed to each other and the project in a highly energized manner which aided the project’s process.