Meeting analysis is essentially a series of useful questions to better understand the interactions between people.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Like music, we do not always get to see what is happening in a large conversation. Except when someone alerts us to its patterns and nuances. Sometimes this understanding is purely interesting. But sometimes it can alert us to meaning and insight, and potential opportunities to improve things.
Meeting analysis is a series of questions that can either be used to reflect back upon past meetings. Or they can help to develop insight into current meetings.
In the former case, we would suggest that you simply flick through the questions mentally. See if thinking about them raises any interesting observations or further questions. They may highlight some specific areas of curiosity or interest. Perhaps these are areas you might want to check out specifically at your next meeting.
In the case of live events, meeting analysis may be difficult to do in your own meetings. Except in cases where the flow is managing itself. But you could use them to observe someone else’s meeting. And then provide the meeting analysis back to them on what is happening.
The questions explore five different areas of how meetings work:
Participation & membership
- Is there any pattern or particular intensity of participation? And does it shift?
See the article on mapping meeting dynamics for guidance on this. - How are silent people treated? And how is their silence interpreted?
- Who talks to whom? And is there any underlying reason for this?
- Who keeps the ball rolling? How? And why?
- Is there any subgrouping: consistently agreeing or disagreeing?
- Alternatively, is there an ‘in crowd’? How are those who are ‘out’ treated?
- Do some members move in and out (coming forward or sitting back)? And under what conditions?
Influence and norms
- Which members are high in influence? Which are low? And is there any shift?
- And how do they influence the other members? Is it autocratically, or democratically?
- Is there any rivalry in the group, and how does this affect the others?
- Are certain topics taboo? Who reinforces this and how?
- Is there too high a degree of politeness and agreement?
- What happens when members disagree?
- Are there any underlying ‘house rules’ in operation?
Decision making
- Who identifies the topic for discussion, and how does (s)he gain agreement on this?
- Does the group jump from topic to topic? And who seems to encourage this and why?
- Who tends to be supportive of others’ suggestions and decisions?
- Is there evidence of the majority overriding the minority (eg by voting)? Or does the group drive for consensus?
- Is anybody apparently ignored?
Atmosphere and feelings
- Who seems to prefer a friendly congenial atmosphere, and how do they attempt to create it?
- Who seems to prefer an atmosphere of conflict and disagreement, and how do they attempt to create it?
- How would you describe the general atmosphere?
- What signs of feeling do you observe in group members?
- Are there any attempts to block the expression of negative feelings?
Influence of group politics
- To what extent do you observe fight defences exhibited? Is there competition, cynicism or interrogation?
- To what extent do you observe flight defences exhibited? Is there intellectualisation, generalisation, projection, rationalisation or withdrawal?
- Is there any obvious ‘pairing’ taking place? These are situations where two individuals always support each other’s case?
- Can you see any evidence of ‘red-crossing’? This is similar to ‘pairing’, but where they automatically rush to each other’s aid – like a pact?
- Or is the tendency to ‘focus on one’ when there is an issue? Perhaps in the hope of avoiding wider questions. Questions which make other people vulnerable.
Author: Mike Clargo | Culturistics
Track your progress to ensure the efficacy of this strategy.