My favourite fire chief had a split personality. He recognized and practiced two kinds of meetings with his staff in the fire department: the ones where instructions are issued and the ones where the team sits back to listen to their own wisdom and then act accordingly.

In an emergency the team jumps into action and to work effectively, and safely, they rely on each team member to play their prescribed roles. This includes the role of the captain who must issue directions or instructions as the emergency unfolds. The purpose of most meetings during the emergency is to provide direction and allow any questions of clarification from team members because there isn’t time to pause and chat; it is time for action. The captain relies on the team for feedback about what is happening and the team relies on the captain to clear instructions on what to do when. They are in action mode and in the heat of the moment (pun intended) they rely on this structure to perform well.

In contrast, there were times when the fire department was not in emergency mode and the entire team stood back to review and evaluate how well they work together. Firefighters, captains, the fire chief and deputy chiefs, fire inspectors, and support staff all gathered, in groups small and large, to discern what was working well and what was not. The subjects were super practical, like the state of the hoses and when they would be replaced, to a cleaning schedule for the kitchen, or labour/management relations. The fire chief worked to not make decisions that did not need his authority. And when the decision was his, he allowed others to inform him in robust ways.

Plan for the right meeting

There is a difference between listening to one person (on the stage, at the head of the board table, or the captain on the radio) and listening to everyone involved. There is a difference between “telling and following” and “exploring and listening.” This is the difference my favourite fire chief was able to acknowledge and put into action. In an emergency, it was necessary for people to tell and people to follow; other times allowing people to explore ideas, listen to each other and decide on their own was appropriate.

We are most familiar with the tell and follow sort of meeting; it’s our default. Even when there is no urgency, the gravitational pull of the tell and follow way of behaviour is irresistible. If we want an explore and listen meeting, we have to actively organize ourselves for it. It starts with a choice:

Are we meeting to share information and provide direction or instructions, with opportunities for clarification? or
Are we meeting to listen in more robust ways to the diversity of perspectives in the room to inform wise collective action?

Both options are correct, depending on the circumstances. In an emergency, clear instructions, with an expectation that they be followed, can be a matter of life or death. When we need to figure out how to move forward through a complex challenge, missing out on a diversity of perspectives can also be matter of life or death.

These two options–-tell or explore –-are distinct from each other in terms of how we physically organize ourselves, their purpose, and the assumptions made by all involved in where the expertise and leadership resides, and how information flows. Further, the role of the chair, or the “host” of the meeting also differs.

A instruction meeting

Here’s how I know when I am planning a meeting to provide direction, or instructions:

Shape: board table, a theatre (one or a few people can see everyone)
Purpose: tell, direct, instruct, set people up to go do something, share information
Expertise: in one, select few
Leadership: at the top
Information flow: from one or few down to many others
Host role: chair the meeting

A discernment meeting

Here’s how I know when I am planning a meeting for a group to discern what action to take:

Shape: small circles, large circle (everyone can see everyone)
Purpose: listen, share, integrate, figure things out together
Expertise: in everyone
Leadership: shared, distributed
Information flow: from everyone to everyone
Host role: co-create the space, or a “container'“

Host the right meeting

Both approaches are right–-in the right circumstances. It is a matter of acknowledging the purpose of the gathering and designing for that purpose. As a host of a meeting, or a participant supporting a host, I have to make sure that I embody the direction or discernment qualities of the meeting. This means I need to pay close attention to the shape and processes so they reflect the purpose of the meeting.

We don’t, however, have two clear-cut choices; they are not mutually exclusive. It is not as though there will be no discernment at a board table, or that by working in a circle that no direction will be established for the group, or for individuals. What really counts is our clear intention for the gathering, and our commitment to it, so we do not succumb, unconsciously, to the strong pull of expertise, and the assumption that expertise resides in only one or a few of us.

“We don’t have two clear-cut choices; they are not mutually exclusive.”

Hosting the right meeting also means being clear about the purposes of the smaller parts of the meeting. It could look like this:

A check in to hear everyone’s voice about a topic
A clear purpose is set by the convenor (We have ______ to solve. Once we are clear about what to do we will assign responsibility as appropriate.)
An exploratory conversation about why the problem is happening
An action conversation about options to solve the problem
A role clarity conversation to assign actions to specific people, boss and others
A check out to hear everyone’s voice before ending the meeting

The convenor can a boss or colleague, or a group of people connected to the topic. “Authority” will pop into the conversation regularly; some people may be required to play certain roles. The diversity of perspectives on the topic makes wise decisions and action possible.

We have a deep-rooted tendency to feel either that “I am the expert”, or to feel that “they are the experts.” When we fall into this expert trap, we magnify or diminish our authority. And in so doing, we diminish the opportunities available to us to step into the collective leadership we are called to offer our communities and cities. It is necessary to get involved by making room for other voices, and our own when we are the owners of the unheard voices.

The circle can find its way around a rectilinear table. It depends on how we put ourselves in the conversation. Here are three principles and three practices my Circle Way colleagues and I use, developed by Christina Baldwin and Ann Linnea. They are a simple way to start.

Three principles

Leadership rotates among all circle members
Responsibility is shared for the quality of experience
Reliance is on wholeness rather than any person agenda

Three practices

Speak with intention: note what has relevance to the conversation in the moment
Listen with attention: respect of the learning process for all members of the group
Tend to the well-being of the circle: remain aware of the impact of our contributions

Implementing these principles and practices is challenging because they embody a significant cultural shift from our automatic expertise stance, to one that welcomes, invites and accommodates the diverse expertise within and around us.

“Openness to vulnerability is leadership–-and this kind of leadership is shared and easier to carry if we are brave enough to notice when it is needed.”

Whether at the board table or in a circle, we are each required, as citizens, to be self-aware in ways we are not well-practiced, and this self-awareness is a necessary precondition to collective awareness and discernment. At most board tables self-awareness is a scary proposition because it comes with vulnerability, but in this cultural shift vulnerability is a strength, not a liability. Openness to vulnerability is leadership–-and this kind of leadership is shared and easier to carry if we are brave enough to notice when it is needed.

RESOURCE:

The Circle Way Guidelines outline the components of circle, in addition to the principles and practices described above, that help create the conditions for collective discernment in a circle or even at a board table. Available in multiple languages.

REFLECTION:

Which principle or practice feels the most scary to you?
Which principle or practice feels the most comfortable to you?

Meeting for Instructions or Discernment?