Ask any minister to “name three things that drive you to distraction in the church,” and one of the three will likely be something about meetings.
Every minister seems to have a story of a church meeting that lasted till 2 A.M. and almost split the church . . . or a meeting in which the sole accomplishment was to set the time for the next meeting.
I’ve had my share of frustration, too, but I have discovered ten check points that have helped take the muddle out of meetings.
 Do we really need this meeting? Some think the first step to solve any problem is to call a meeting to discuss it. The truth is, meetings make some problems worse, not better.
Someone once said that if you gather ten church members, you’ll get twelve answers to every question. (By the time the last person expresses his opinion, the first two will have changed their minds.) The longer the meeting, the more opinions it spawns.
Some decisions are best made by one individual, not a committee.
When someone who has the authority and the information necessary to make a decision chooses instead to call a meeting, he may simply be sidestepping his responsibility. As a result, we lose time and gain heartache.
Before I call a meeting, I ask myself if a committee of one is enough to solve the problem. If I have the authority to make the decision, then I try to do it and to be emotionally prepared to take the heat for decisions that are mine to make. If someone else has the responsibility, I ask that person to decide.
Only when a group needs to be involved do I call a meeting.
 What is our purpose? Once it’s clear a meeting is necessary, its purpose must be stated carefully.
One man was frustrated after a meeting he led. “Every time I chair a meeting,” he said, “things fall apart.” Together we tried to pinpoint exactly why he had called the meeting.
We knew the general purpose: to go over the church budget for the next year. We discovered we were not so clear about the specific purpose. Was it to present information, to ask for suggestions, to make a group decision, or to ask for approval?
Because the specific purpose wasn’t clear, the meeting quickly spun out of control.
 Does everyone understand the purpose? Once I know the purpose, I still must communicate it to everyone in the meeting. I cannot assume everyone knows. They don’t, and their presuppositions can create havoc. A simple statement of purpose can prevent misunderstanding.
In the church budget meeting mentioned above, the specific purpose was simply to inform people what the church leaders had decided to budget for the next year. It was not a decision-making session. But the people attending didn’t know that. They assumed suggestions and perhaps a vote of endorsement were needed from them.
Both the leaders and the attenders meant well, but they worked at cross purposes. The leaders wondered why the people weren’t accepting their plan. The people wondered why their suggestions were rejected and why the leaders seemed so defensive. Bruised feelings and wasted time could have been avoided if the leaders had clarified at the start-and reiterated during the session-why the meeting was called.
 Are we respecting people’s time? It’s tempting to wait courteously for latecomers to arrive. But a slow start sets the tone for the meeting to follow. Waiting for latecomers also conveys the unspoken message that tardiness is acceptable. It reinforces future patterns of lateness. Why be on time if the meeting isn’t?
A prompt start sets a serious tone for the session and tells those attending that their time will not be wasted.
Starting on time also gives an important nonverbal message that the task is more important than any participant. No matter how many words we say about the importance of our task, our nonverbal actions speak louder.
I learned the power of non-verbal messages in my college cafeteria line. Just for fun I would point at beans and say, “Corn.” Most of the time, they gave me beans without a flicker of recognition. A few times, the attendant would glance at me briefly-and then serve me beans! He may have wondered about my confusion, but I always got what I pointed at, not what I said.
When leading meetings I can point to the importance of the task at hand, or I can point to the privilege of coming late.
 Is the agenda clear to everyone? Some leaders think if they keep the agenda a secret, they can better control the meeting. But in most cases, with an agenda in hand, participants sense the meeting is well-planned, and they work with greater purpose.
When they don’t know the agenda, they tend to waste time. If they don’t know they have to cover fifteen items, they’re more inclined to tell their wonderful ‘coon hunting story. With a clear agenda, people feel more constrained to keep things moving.
Preparing an agenda also allows you to arrange items to best serve the purpose of the group. At times you may want to put the most important items first, leaving lesser items further down the list, in case time runs out. Or you may want to warm up with a few items everyone agrees on before you tackle the tough issues.
 Am I keeping things on track? All participants in the meeting should share the responsibility of staying on track, but they don’t. It is left to the chairperson to keep things focused.
Some leaders control things so tightly that nobody can do anything without their approval. They originate all items and speak with authority on each one. Such a tight rein prevents exploration of the group’s will and frustrates its members.
Others go to the opposite extreme. They see their role as a timekeeper, who blows the whistle to start the game and blows it again to end it. Between whistles they passively watch the contest until everyone is exhausted.
The chairperson’s role falls between these two extremes. A leader must lead, facilitating the work of the group without being either dictatorial or passive, controlling the flow of the meeting without dominating it.
This can be done by asking questions, calling for clarification, and summarizing or reflecting back to the group what they are saying.
For instance, if a meeting turns into a conversational cul de sac, I need not sit helplessly by. I may say something like, “Excuse me for interrupting, but I am a bit confused just now.” When I assume the “blame,” I avoid offending the one I interrupted.
Or I may say: “It seems I have let the discussion drift. I think the question we’re trying to solve is . . .” Then I can restate the real issue and ask if anyone has suggestions for the solution. Amazingly, the group usually redirects itself to the question and moves forward.
Conversational drift, however, will not normally correct itself without the leader’s assertive action.
One of the more difficult situations for a leader is a direct confrontation between two participants. Since my task is to move the group toward solving the original issues, it is not beneficial for me to take sides or declare a winner. But neither should I squelch disagreement. Some of the best solutions come out of conflict, but only if the meeting is kept in a discussion mode. Cool, dispassionate discussion can easily slip into an emotionally hot argument.
Correcting this problem can be difficult. I may try courtesy: “Pardon me, gentlemen, for interrupting . . .”
Or I may try understanding: “I’m not sure we all understand the issue here. Mr. A, you said you disagreed with Mr. B. Would you mind restating your understanding of what he said? Now Brother B, would you listen to him while he does it? In fact, we’ll all listen to be sure we understand.”
This sort of diplomatic maneuver will slow the speed of the argument and cool the heat of emotion. If we can clear up misunderstanding, we can usually turn the meeting back toward a calm discussion.
 Do I know the secret agendas? As leader I need to see the hidden agendas people bring to meetings. Captains know where rocks are submerged in the channel so their ships won’t run aground. Leaders should look for private agendas that clutter the channel and run the meeting aground.
A hidden agenda may be the cause, for instance, when two people who seem to agree on the issue still bicker with each other. I was in one meeting in which two deacons disagreed repeatedly over a variety of issues. The secret agenda was their dislike of each other. Since they could not openly admit to such unchristian feelings, they grabbed any issue as an opportunity to disagree.
Other people may sidetrack an issue with criticism of the way the minister spends his time-a sore spot about which the person has never spoken to the minister.
So what can I do if I spot some private agenda cluttering the meeting?
Benevolent confrontation is one of the best ways. I may say: “Our issue here is how to regulate the use of our building by outside organizations, but somehow we have wound up talking about our minister’s time. Perhaps I’m the only one lost, but could someone hook these together for me?” Usually no one can, and I can move the discussion back on course.
 Can we summarize the group’s conclusions? If we meet to decide something, we ought to decide something! Sometimes, however, not everybody will know what the group has decided. The only way to be reasonably sure conclusions are clear is to state them clearly in the meeting: “So we’re agreed that we will do. … Is that correct? Do I understand the wishes of the group?”
By saying something like that, I learn immediately whether I understand the consensus or not.
Articulating decisions also allays the fears of some who feel no decisions were made. It also corrects others who have misunderstood the conclusion. It gives all the participants a feeling of accomplishment.
What if no definitive decision was reached? Should I invent one? No, but I may say: “We have decided four issues, but we’ll have to leave the fifth question for our next meeting.” Conclusions should be fair, based on what the participants have actually said. They should never represent merely the hopes or imagination of the leader.
 Have we kept accurate minutes? Why do we need written minutes? Because people’s recollections are faulty.
Further, when the minutes are read and officially approved at the next meeting, the decisions will be safeguarded and less likely to be questioned in the future.
 If I’m not leading, am I helping the chairperson? Sometimes we have to suffer through meetings chaired by others, seemingly unable to control our own destiny. But even then, we are not powerless: anyone can raise a question from the floor; anyone can ask for clarification.
With these tools, we can help keep things on track.
I might say: “Mr. Chairman, I am puzzled. Our problem is the use of the building, and I can’t see how ministerial time management is related.”
The chairperson can redirect a drifting discussion once the dilemma has been highlighted. The offenders will usually slip back into line and pretend they were never astray. On the other hand, it is possible someone could prove I actually am confused. If so, I have to accept correction. Either way, the meeting wins.
See if these questions work for you as they have for me. No leader can make every meeting a magnificent experience, but asking these questions can go a long way toward taking the muddle out of meetings.
-Robert K. Oglesby
Waterview Church of Christ
Richardson, Texas
Copyright © 1991 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
