Meeting Dynamics

From Dallas Makerspace
Jump to: navigation, search

Who runs meetings?



  1. Brad Pitt assumes the role of running the meeting.
  2. The meeting begins and George Clooney says he should run the meeting instead.
  3. Brad Pitt motions for a vote on who will be running the meeting.
  4. George Clooney loses the vote and feels alienated by the group.
  5. George Clooney continues to express his annoyance for who is running the meeting by being combative during the meeting.
  6. And this could continue if more people wanted to run the meeting...

Note: The scenario could go much differently, but the main issue is having a popular vote on who runs the meeting. Disagreements will inevitably occur when someone volunteers to run the meeting, so we need to assume a popular vote is a very likely outcome of someone volunteering to run the meeting.



  • The membership is self-governing
  • The membership decides its own level of objectivity in its governance
  • The membership determines how meeting proceed


  • At least one person feels alienated by the group.
  • It creates an uncomfortable situation, and contributes to making meetings not enjoyable to attend.
  • At least one person feels the need to be combative during the meeting.
  • Wasted time electing a person to run the meeting, when it could be been decided beforehand.
  • It makes the group look like it is not coherent.

Solution: The President, An Officer, Or A Director Runs The Meeting


  • It avoids conflict and alienation because there is no debate/vote over who will be running the meeting.
  • By preferring the President/Officer/Board Member, you're more likely to have an objective leader (or at least someone who is more likely to win a popular vote anyway) running the meeting. This prevents someone from running the meeting because they want to support their own agenda.


  • Although the meeting would be run by someone who is a member, it does not encourage a separation between the voting bodies of the directors and membership.
    • This issue could be negated by appointing an officer whose job is to preside over membership meetings.
    • The president or a board member has generally run the meetings in the past anyway.