role of the chairperson

The Role of Chairperson
Most meetings require a chairperson in order to control and direct the proceedings. They carry the authority to keep order and maintain progress in line with the agenda. The role of the chair is similar to that of an umpire or referee, aware of the rules of conduct and capable of enforcing these when necessary. However, the chair is also an important member of the group and may be required to vote on the major issues and may even have to exercise a casting vote.

The selection of a chairperson for a formal meeting may be subject to certain rules. For example, the company secretary may be required to chair the AGM. Informal meetings may select a chair by a simple vote or via instructions from whoever has called the meeting. Sometimes there is a rotating chair where everyone gets a turn at leading the proceedings. Whilst this idea is democratic and inclusive, it is unlikely that the skills and qualities required of an effective chair will be found in all of those attending the meeting.

Personal Qualities of the Chair
The main concern of the chair should be the aims and objectives of the group and the integrity of the meeting process. There follows a brief description of the personal qualities that a good chair should possess.

Authority
The chair will need to maintain control to ensure that progress is made in line with the schedule – as defined in the agenda.

Flexibility
Following an agenda does not always imply unquestioning devotion to it. For example, if an unplanned deviation could produce a clarification or the bonding together of meeting participants, then this might represent a very effective strategy.

Impartiality
It is important that the chair supports an equal and fair consideration of all sides of the argument. This can be especially difficult where the chair is privately on one side of the debate.

Maturity
The chair must be able to accept and work with a broad cross section of personalities. They should view each meeting without too much preconception as to how individuals will act and react, but be able to respond as the need arises.

If you aspire to chair meetings but feel that you are weak in one or more of these areas try to improve that skill by observing a chairperson in whom you recognize these qualities. This could be either at meetings you attend or by watching televised debates

Manage the Meeting Process
As the chair, your primary concern should be with the process of the meeting and not the substantive issues it has been called to address. Foremost among these are any protocols that should be followed and the even-handedness with which you direct the proceedings. Your ongoing effectiveness as chair will nearly always be more important than your ability to shape the outcome of any single issue. If you get embroiled in the substantive debate concerning one or more issues, you risk losing credibility and once lost this can prove impossible to regain.

If you wish to have a motion tabled at a meeting that you are chairing, try enlisting another participant to actually make that point. Offering tacit support to someone else's case is a more effective tactic than making it yourself. If you wish to influence the outcome of a particular debate, an effective tactic might be to seek approval for processes that are likely to favor your preferred outcome. If successful, you will be able to exert influence without expressing an opinion. In extreme circumstances, you may decide that it is necessary to sacrifice impartiality for what you see as the importance of helping the group decide on a certain course of action.

Chairing a Meeting of Subordinates
Staying in control of a meeting, which is made up of subordinates should be straightforward. You will be acknowledged as having the authority necessary to set the limits on areas of discussion and will be able to take control whenever you need to. The main challenge is not how to gain, or keep, control but how to liberate your meeting partners, so that everyone can engage in a frank and worthwhile exchange. It is often more productive not to demonstrate too much enthusiasm for any one idea that has been tabled. This approach will encourage greater participation and the generation of more ideas. If you back one particular idea during a meeting, then it is likely that subordinates will fall in line, effectively stifling further debate.

Chairing a Meeting of Peers
When meeting with your peers, your right to control the meeting is not as clear as it is with subordinates. A meeting represents a natural arena for competition among peers, and you are likely to encounter this at various times.

You will not have the luxury of imposing your authority or the ability to admonish other participants. Keeping control of a meeting with your peers will rely more on your ability to manage relationships and deal with any challenges or conflicts in a way that is positive and maintains good humor. A variety of strategies can assist in gaining, and keeping, control of a meeting with peers, as discussed below:

Seek Endorsement
If your boss asks you to convene and lead a meeting, then that will add weight to your role and should make your task easier. However, if your boss makes this clear in a memo or e-mail to each of the participants, then your position will be formally endorsed and your task will have been made that much easier.

Devising the Agenda
The agenda is a precise statement of what the meeting has been called to accomplish, and this more than anything else is the definitive tool for controlling a meeting of peers. When meeting with peers, there should be a consultation process, which is used to shape the agenda. This process enables them to have a say in what is discussed and when. This consultation may also alert you to any hidden agendas among your meeting partners.

Start Formally
Gaining control among peers is a lot more difficult than losing it. It is also more difficult to move from informality to formality than vice-versa. Therefore, whilst you should always be friendly and courteous, it is often good practice to start on a formal or semi-formal basis when meeting with peers. You may then choose to relax when you feel happy that you have gained control over the proceedings. Success breeds success, it also breeds authority. If you develop a track record of leading successful meetings, then your peers are more likely to defer to your judgment. Everyone wants to be associated with a winner, but always remember that your peers must be treated with respect, or resentment and a subsequent loss of authority are likely to follow.

Handling Disruption
Meetings are sometimes disrupted by one or more individual’s intent on making their point. Even if this involves shouting down all other participant’s, including the chairperson. When a meeting is disrupted it is the responsibility of the chair to deal with the problem quickly and restore order. The nature of the meeting will determine the most appropriate method of doing this. In a small scale meeting disciplinary procedures could be alluded to, or even invoked. Troublemakers could be asked to leave or the meeting could be adjourned, in order to discuss the point of contention in a different setting.

Large-scale meetings can present more of a problem, particularly if the disruption has been pre-planned and is being orchestrated on the day. It is important that you take firm control of the situation from the outset and establish your authority. The chair should also be aware of any legal procedures that can be invoked to control or direct the business of any meeting. The alternative courses of action open to the chair in the face of disruption from the floor are:
1. Asking the troublemaker, or ringleader to desist.
2. Requesting the same thing, but in official language, quoting any relevant procedural or legal clauses.
3. If the disruption continues the chair should request that the troublemaker leaves the meeting immediately.
4. The final course of action is to have the troublemaker forcibly removed, preferably by the official security at the venue.

TOP <PREVIOUS NEXT>