Pages

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Sponsorship Request Letter


October 1, 2012


Duluth Civitan Club
PO Box 1712
Duluth, GA 30096


Dear Sponsor:

We want to thank you for your generous sponsorship in support of the City of Duluth’s 2012 State of the City Address this past January.  The event was a tremendous success, with a terrific presentation by Mayor Nancy Harris, and a record 210 guests in attendance - including over 5 members of the press!

Plans for the 2013 State of the City Address are already in the works, with Mayor Harris actively developing another impressive presentation – including the introduction of a "mystery mayor"!

As a result of your participation, and the contributions of other big-hearted sponsors such as yourself, the City of Duluth and the Duluth Civitan Club were able to provide $1,750 to each of the following organizations. This represents 100% of the net proceeds for the event!

            Annandale Village - an award-winning nonprofit organization in Suwanee, GA, dedicated solely to serving adults with developmental disabilities and traumatic brain injuries.

            Creative Enterprises – a non-profit organization in Lawrenceville, GA, dedicated to maximizing the potential of adults with disabilities and others who experience barriers to employment.

            Driving Magic – a Duluth non-profit organization that focuses on therapeutic and recreational equine-assisted activities (including carriage driving and horsemanship programs) for children and adults with developmental and physical disabilities.

            Rainbow Village - a transitional housing community in Duluth, GA (winner of the 2012 D. Scott Hudgens Humanitarian Award) for homeless families with children desiring to craft a new life for themselves and their children.

We are excited to invite you to participate again this year as a State of the City Address sponsor, or Expo participant, for the year 2013. In doing so, you will help us serve the Duluth and central Gwinnett area as we fulfill our purpose to improve the lives of children and adults with developmental disabilities. May we count on your sponsorship once again this year?

For your convenience, a copy of the 2013 State of the City Address sponsorship brochure and application is attached.

With much appreciation,

Susan Young
President-elect, Duluth Civitan Club

Attachment: 2013 SOCA Sponsorship & Application

Monday, September 10, 2012

Creating an Effective Memo Using AIDA

 
Using the AIDA (Attention Grabbing, Interest Maintaining, Desire with Logical Appeal, Action Request) approach enables a writer to effectively draw in the reader early, and to keep the reader’s attention long enough to effectively persuade.  According to Roebuck (2006), an indirect approach is typically used in writing persuasively, in that we are a low-context culture where “meaning is trusted almost entirely to words” (p. 115).  By using words, we bring the reader along to identify the problem and the recommended solution as we see them.  Then, we lead them to take the action we desire.  This is an especially effective way to persuade or sell (a product or oneself), and also an effective way to ensure people read a memo.


MEMO

TO:  SKY Management Team
FROM:  Susan Young, VP of Process Improvement
DATE:  May 17, 2012
SUBJECT:  Wasteful Meetings Cost SKY $200k/Year!  (High-Priority)

Wasteful Meetings Cost SKY $200k/Year!  (Attention Grabbing)

Are you fed-up with poorly attended meetings that produce few results?  A shocking 61% of SKY employees surveyed in 2011 believe that meetings are a significant waste of time – and that equates to anemic production and a waning bottom line.  If you’ve ever wondered about the cost to benefit ratio of meetings in our organization, you won’t be surprised to learn that experts have already done the math.  Steve Kay, an International Association of Facilitators (IAF) Certified Professional Facilitator, author and speaker gets right to the point by stating,  “…companies waste almost 20% of their payroll on bad meetings.” (Interest Maintaining)

As responsible directors and managers, we have the influence it takes to change our meeting culture into one of purposeful, intentional, and action-oriented meetings that produce results and positively impact our bottom line.  Just imagine what our organization will do with any extra $200k added to our bottom line!  (Desire with Logical Appeal)

In accordance with SKY’s 2012 Do it Better strategic initiative, SKY’s executive management team has engaged Steve Kay for a three-day workshop next month entitled, Meetings that Produce Positive Results and Improve the Bottom LineDetailed workshop information, Steve’s C-V and the workshop agenda is attached.  As a member of Tier 1, 2 and 3 management, your attendance is requested at this business-critical session.  (Action Request)

Please reserve the dates now (see below).  Remember to R.S.V.P. (also attached) by Friday, June 1st.  
What:     Meetings that Produce Positive Results
with Steve Kaye,
IAF Certified Professional Facilitator, author and speaker
When:    June 18, 19, 20, 2012 (M, T, W)
8:00AM – 4:00PM
A continental breakfast, box lunch and snacks will be provided each day.
WhereHilton Garden Inn Atlanta Perimeter Center
1501 Lake Hearn Drive
Atlanta, GA 30319
Ballroom C
RSVP:     By June 1, 2012
(Complete attached self-addressed and stamped RSVP card)

Attachments (3)
Steve Kay CV
Workshop Agenda
RSVP Form



References

Kaye, Steve.  (2006, July 3).  One great meeting.  Wryte stuff.  Retrieved from http://stekay.wrytestuff.com/swa75997.htm
Roebuck, D.B. (2006).  Improving business communications skills (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Communication in Mediation and Arbitration

 

 

In business and in personal life there will be times when two parties are in conflict over issues that cannot successfully be resolved. One party may believe they are being treated unfairly, one or more parties may have strong and difficult personalities and not be inclined to negotiate, while others may have multiple issues or issues that are very complex. 
The best way to handle such cases may not be to go to court, rather to engage in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods. I will briefly examine the procedures of mediation and arbitration in conflict resolution, the types of disputes that utilize mediation and arbitration, and drawbacks to the use of mediation and arbitration. Lastly, I will look at the function and purpose of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), and its potential usefulness in my future career.
Mediation
Mediation, according to Coker & Gubernick (2009), is a “platform used to resolve differences, most often between two or more parties, conducted by an impartial third party… [where] the disputing parties are empowered to determine the final agreement” (para. 4). Abigail & Cahn (2011) further clarify that, “[t]he conflict has reached a point where the parties are unable to resolve the issue by themselves due to a breakdown in communication, and normal relations are unlikely until the dispute is resolved” (Abigail & Cahn, 2011, p. 195).
Because each party is empowered to resolve their own conflict, there is full participation by the parties, yielding a high success rate where a workable agreement is reached between parties eighty percent of the time (Abigail & Cahn, 2011), with a higher level of satisfaction compared to court or arbitrator rendered decisions.
Other benefits include restored communication and normalized relations; a resolution being reached more quickly than what court schedules allow; a “higher compliance rate in following through with the agreements” (Coker & Gubernick, 2009, para. 7); a more cost-effective process; the control, by both parties, in the resolution of their conflict; and often, a “greater respect and understanding of the other party’s perspective” (para. 7) to aid in reaching a resolution.
Arbitration
Arbitration, also an alternative means of ADR, is where a neutral third party hears each side of the dispute, and then makes a decision independently as to what the resolution will be.  Because both parties have agreed beforehand to abide by the decision, it is more binding than a court decision (Abigail & Cahn, 2011), and more formal than mediation. 
Role of the Mediator
The role of the mediator “defined as neutral third party, who has no decision-making power regarding the outcome of the mediation” (Abigail & Cahn, 2011, p. 197), is to move the conflict from a private affair to a public one, decreasing the likelihood of competition and a win-lose solution, and increasing the possibility of cooperation, collaboration, reaching reasonable decisions, and obtaining social justice (Abigail & Cahn, 2011).  The introduction of a mediator into a conflict can be informal, where the mediator has no training or certification, or formal where the mediator has training and/or certification.
Mediators try to “create a safe and constructive environment to encourage the disputants to communication, cooperate, and work out their own mutually satisfying solution” (p. 197).  Mediators must be neutral, unbiased, and must not take sides. They must practice what the Center for Mediation and Law at Harvard Law School terms, “subjective neutrality,” where the “validity and truth of each person’s story” is honored apart from who is right or wrong (Abigail & Cahn, 2011, p. 197). Mediators need to maintain full confidentiality. All parties must agree to these terms, which, in turn, facilitate a high level of self-disclosure and a more effective mediation session between the conflicting parties.  Mediators need to be competent communicators, and effective facilitators of communication for the parties involved.           
Role of the Arbitrator
An arbitrator’s role involves the determination of legal rights (Aliment, 2009), and leads to a binding resolution. Often, the role includes engaging in “attributes of litigation, including the use of depositions, written discovery, and document production” (para. 7), and witnesses may be called to testify.  Formal procedural rules are drafted ahead of time determining control over how the dispute is decided, and specifying the “extent of the award or type of damages” (para. 7). The arbitrator, as with the mediator, must hold everything in the strictest of confidentiality.
Effectiveness of Mediation
Mediation is effective in resolving disputes in the workplace, divorce, neighbor situations, school, small claims, victim-offender, etc., and wherever the conflicting parties can benefit from “a chance to address their conflicts, to be heard by the other party, [and] to listen to the other party’s perspective” (Coker & Gubernick, 2009, para. 5), with the goal of reaching a mutually satisfying resolution. 
Effectiveness of Arbitration
Arbitration, on the other hand, is most effective in such areas as commercial disputes, complex, multiparty construction conflicts (Morrison, 2011), business and international business disputes, where a binding decision is necessary.
Drawbacks
Both the mediation and arbitration processes have drawbacks. Although compliance with the resolution is high with mediation, it is not binding (Henderson, 1991).  Arbitration, as an alternative to litigation, has shortcomings that include “1. limited discovery, 2. questionable evidence, 3. limited appeals, 4. the absence of meaningful appellate review, and 5. the law to be applied is uncertain” (Vessenes, 1997, abstract).  Arbitration does not necessarily offer speedy resolution to disputes, nor is it always less expensive. (Henderson, 1991, p. 19).
The American Arbitration Association
The American Arbitration Association (AAA) offers dispute resolution services, and is “the nation's largest full-service alternative dispute resolution … provider, addressing disputes involving, but not limited to, employment, intellectual property, consumer, technology, health care, financial services, construction, and international trade conflicts” (http://www.adr.org/drs ). 
The organization offers arbitrators and mediators, AAA regulations, education and training services to “business and industry professionals, employees and government agencies, as well as consumers” (http://www.adr.org/drs ).  The AAA could be helpful in my career should there be a need for case administration, dispute avoidance and early resolution, or situations where arbitration or mediation are necessary. Each of these alternative dispute resolution options are designed to keep the conflict resolution process out of the courts, bring conflicting parties together, and achieve a satisfactory resolution.
Conclusion
I have briefly examined the procedures of mediation and arbitration in conflict resolution, where mediation introduces an impartial third party to empower the conflicting parties reach agreement and restore the relationship. The resolution is mutually satisfactory, has a high rate of compliance, but is not binding. 
Arbitration involves determination of rights, often involves depositions, documentation, and witnesses, and the resolution is determined without the participation of the conflicting parties.  The resolution is legally binding.  Mediation is effective in resolving disputes in the workplace, divorce, neighbor situations, school, small claims, victim-offender, etc. Arbitration is most effective in such areas as commercial disputes, complex, multiparty construction conflicts business and international business disputes, where a binding decision is necessary.
Drawbacks to mediation include a non-binding resolution, while drawbacks to arbitration include no certainty that the procedure will save time and money.  The American Arbitration Association (AAA) is an organization that offers mediation and arbitration services, education and training services to professionals, employees and consumers that are designed to keep the conflict resolution process out of the courts, bring conflicting parties together, and achieve a satisfactory resolution.  These services may be of use to me in my career should I need to have professional assistance in dispute avoidance or early conflict resolution, or in situations where arbitration or mediation are necessary.

~ Susan


References
Abigail, R. A. & Cahn, D. D.  (2011).  Managing conflict through communication (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon Pearson Education
Aliment, R. J.  (2009, Summer).  Alternative dispute resolution in international business transactions.  The brief, 38(4), pp. 12-18, 20-23. Retrieved June 11, 2011 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1838505001&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Coker, C., & Gubernick, D.  (2009, October, 14).  Building peace: Mediation a better way to resolve conflicts. The register-guard, p. A.9.  Retrieved June 11, 2011, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1882817321&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Henderson, T. R.  (1991, November).  Analysis of construction disputes and strategies for cost minimization.  Cost engineering 33(11), p. 17.  Retrieved on June 11, 2011, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=887913&sid=7&Fmt=2&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Morrison, J. F. (2011, May 17).  Steven A. Arbittier, a ‘super lawyer.’  McClatchy – Tribune business news.  Retrieved on June 11, 2011, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2348780521&sid=4&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Vessenes, K. (1997, February).  The trouble with arbitration.  Journal of financial planning, 10(1), p. 18.  Abstract retrieved on June 11, 2011, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=11124910&sid=5&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Research Report - How to Run a Successful Meeting







INTRODUCTION
This report addresses the previously identified issue of meetings that waste time and hinder productivity within the Information Technology (IT) department.  In a recent study that sought to understand how employees perceive business meetings, 92 percent of the 14 respondents believed that some or most of the meetings they attend are a waste of time.  Forty-six percent believed that from 10 to 20 percent of the organization’s payroll is spent on poorly run, unproductive, and inefficient meetings.  

According to Dom Cingoranelli, CMC, CPA (2001), a management consultant with the Experiential Learning Group writing for The CPA Journal, successful meetings do not just happen, they are the result of significant forethought and rigorous planning to achieve a successful meeting.  Cingoranelli asserts that managers need to devote meaningful time and effort to achieve this outcome.  Toward that end, the information contained within this report will provide straightforward guidelines to conducting purposeful and out-come-oriented meetings with follow-up that facilitates accountability, and keeps the project moving and current with established timelines.  These guidelines are recommended specifically for IT directors and managers, leaders of team meetings held at the group level, and generally for participants desiring to make meetings vital and productive, and increase their effectiveness in their organization.

Background and Problem
The problem of ineffective meetings seems to be a theme across industries and throughout decades, with experts agreeing on their tendency to fall short of their potential.  Authur M. Sargent, author of an article published in The Journal of Accountancy in 1959, noted that a significant portion of a professional businessperson’s meetings is consumed in meetings, both large and small, and that the result is “all too often frustration and a feeling of time wasted” (Abstract).  In 1988, Robert Woods, a Ph.D. candidate, and Florence Berger, an associate professor, both at Cornell University, reported that meetings occupy 50 to 60 percent of the work week for the average manager.  Ava S. Butler in her 1996 article, Taking Meetings by Storm, stated that often managers “dream of doing away with meetings, especially those long, boring ones where nothing gets accomplished” (Abstract).   

More recently, Deborah Britt Roebuck (2006) cited MCI WorldCom Conferencing research revealing people spend nearly three hours a day in business meetings, where “73 percent admit to having done other work when they are supposed to be paying attention,” (p. 291), and fully a third of them now skip meetings saying they consider them to be unproductive.  According to a study cited by Woods & Berger (1988), 78 percent of the respondents said they had never received any formal training on how to conduct successful meetings, nor had they ever been instructed on how to participate in meetings to make them successful.  This paper addresses the problem of ineffective and poorly run meetings by suggesting guidelines to aid in the preparation, presentation, and participation of meetings, with the goal of making them successful.

Scope of the Report
This report provides guidelines and suggestions to meeting organizers, leaders, and participants that will increase the productivity and effectiveness of common business meetings.  Although there are many reasons business why meetings take place, this report will address meetings where the purpose is to exchange information and make a decision, and meetings where the purpose is to solve problems.  This report includes techniques and suggestions that have been successful for business meeting leaders in the past, that when applied to today’s meetings will produce meetings with better results.  The report does not contain new and untried techniques, rather offers a few approaches and methods that have proven successful in business meetings across various industries.

Limitations of the Report
The researcher collected survey data from 17 respondents from various business backgrounds.  Although the resulting data is representative of other similar data collected on the subject of running successful meetings, it is not a true sample size of the business population as a whole.  Other limitations include a very limited timeline, and a non-existent budget. 

Sources and Methods of Data Collection
To help identify perceptions of current issues with business meetings, and to collect ideas about creative solutions to these issues, the researcher conducted a 10-question survey of seventeen people.  The survey was posted on the researcher’s Face Book page, and solicited feedback from volunteers in a pool of Face Book friends.  Data from additional sources will be used to provide examples of current thinking on the causes of ineffective meetings, and to provide experts’ thoughts on how to improve meetings.  The desired result of this research is a recommended format for effective business meetings.

Organization of the Report
The report has several sections, each listing a component of running a successful meeting.  The first section discusses determining the meeting’s purpose, followed by a section on deciding who should attend.  Next, a section on how to plan the meeting, one on how to manage the meeting, and finally a section on effective follow up to the meeting to keep efforts moving forward.

FINDINGS
Determine the Meeting’s Purpose
Sargent (1959) defined a meeting as “two or more people who have gathered together for a specific purpose” (p. 41) such as arbitration, problem solving, planning, etc.  Woods & Berger (1988) stated that meetings “fulfill a legitimate and valuable function…[because] a group is generally more creative and better at decision making than an equivalent number of individuals working alone” (p. 101).  The researcher’s survey results find that 29 percent of the time participants never, or almost never understand the purpose of the meetings they attend.  This finding reveals that the first and most elementary concept in planning an effective meeting is to understand the purpose of the meeting, even to the point of deciding if the meeting should be held in the first place (Roebuck, 2006).  Cyrus Farivar, writing for CBS News, believes that a “vast majority of meetings never need to take place” (para. 2), and suggested that if the transfer of information is one way (e.g., update or status report), an email will work best.  If feedback is required from all participants, a meeting may be needed as email has its limitations.  




Figure 1 - Percent of time that respondents understand both the desired purpose and outcome for the meetings they attended.




Once the decision is made to have a meeting, it is important to have clear objectives.  In the survey, less than one percent of the time the respondents indicated both an understanding of the purpose of the meetings and a feeling that none of them were a waste of time.  Woods & Berger (1988) state there are two basic reasons for scheduling a meeting.  Informational meetings allow an exchange of information when the content is too complex for email or memo, and problem-solving meetings. Meetings without clear objectives, the authors say, tend to waste people’s time.  Additionally, it is vital to invite only those people who need to be there.



Figure 2 Percent of time that respondents both understand the meeting’s purpose and consider the meeting a waste of time 






Decide Who Should Attend

When asked how often the meetings they attend contain just the management and staff who are key to the process and decision-making, 54 percent of the respondents indicated most of the time, while 46 percent indicated never, almost never, or some of the time.  Cingoranelli (2001) suggested the manager should determine “whose input is vital to the issue, whose knowledge is essential for solving the problem, and whose involvement afterward will be critical to implementation” (para. 5).  This means carefully evaluating the potential attendees for their ability to contribute directly to the meeting’s purpose. 




Figure 3 – Percent of respondents who said that only attendees critical to the process and decision making attend meetings







Figure 4Maximum Number of Participants per Meeting Type
SOURCE:  Roebuck, D.B. (2006). Improving business communications skills (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.


Plan the Meeting

Once the type of meeting and the appropriate participants have been determined, Woods & Berger (1988) asserted the next “critical element in running a good business meeting is proper planning” (p. 102), and that establishing the agenda is fundamental to that purpose.  When asked how often the meetings in their organization contain a basic agenda (at a minimum a discussion topic, discussion leader, time allotted for discussion), respondents replied that 58% percent of the time an agenda is prepared never, almost never, or only some of the time, with 43% saying most of the time.   
According to Woods & Berger (1988), a good agenda is more than a list of topics up for discussion.  As a critical tool in the success of a meeting, an agenda should include the following items:  start- and end-time, location, purpose, required attendees, brief summary of topics to be discussed, desired outcome (solution, agreement to move forward, other action, etc.), discussion leader, and time allotted per discussion.  Further, the authors suggested that meetings should be as “short as possible and never longer than two hours” (p. 103).  This ensures “sufficient attention and energy to work efficiently…beyond that…meeting productivity will decrease” (p. 103).  When asked to identify what is the biggest barrier to successful meetings in the survey, half the recipients indicated a lack of a clear plan for the meeting.  It is clear that without this plan, the meeting will wander, the interest of attendees will languish, and people will feel their time has been wasted.  




Figure 5 Percent of time meetings contain a basic agenda







The manager should circulate the prepared agenda a day or two prior to the scheduled meeting.  This allows for the participants to provide feedback should there be a need to alter a discussion topic in any way, and for the participants to prepare for leading a discussion on their assigned topic.  To ensure that participants have the background information necessary for the meeting, supporting documents or reports should be attached to the agenda.  Agendas distributed by email should be pasted into the body of the email rather than included as attachments to alleviate the tendency for email recipients to avoid opening attachments.  Once the agenda is distributed, attention must be given to the meeting process.

Manage the Meeting

Promptness of attendees is critical to the progress of the meeting.  Author Carmine Gallo (2010) quotes Steve Spurgeon, an Interpersonal Communications Specialist, who spent over three decades in senior leadership at the world’s top Public Relation agencies, as saying “there is a ‘collective energy’ and attention at the start of a meeting that evaporates with every late arrival” (para. 4).  Woods & Berger (1988) explained that late arrivers slow the meeting’s progress and shift the attention from the topic at hand to their late arrival. 
In addition to setting expectations for promptness, meeting experts agree that establishing meeting roles is critical to the successful functioning of the meeting [Woods & Berger (1988), Kolano (1995)].  When asked how often the meetings they attend contain individuals functioning in certain roles (facilitator, discussion leader, note/action item taker), 29 percent (4) of the respondents in the survey indicated never or almost never, 14 percent (2) responded some of the time, while 57 percent (8) responded most of the time.  In his blog, How to Run a Successful Meeting, Cyrus Farivar (2007) proposes when a meeting organizer enlists the help of others to handle specific details, meetings run more smoothly.  Encouraging participants to invest in the success of the meeting process minimizes boredom, and allows them to contribute to the meeting’s overall effectiveness.  At a minimum, Kolano (1995) recommends identifying key meeting participants for the following roles:

  • Facilitator – Keeps the meeting on track, follows up on assigned actions after the meeting
  • Discussion Leader – Keeps participants on track with the topicScribe – Records important information, action items and due dates, and distributes to meeting participants.  
  • Timekeeper – Makes sure the meeting starts and stops on schedule, reminds facilitator when agenda items are going over their allotted time (Farivar, 2005, para. 11).



Figure 6 Percent of time meetings enlist others in functional role






FOLLOW-UP ON ACTION ITEMS

When meeting minutes or action items have been recorded, it is imperative that they be distributed as soon as possible, but within 24 hours after the meeting ends (Woods & Berger, 1998).  The authors also recommend using action minutes to eliminate the unnecessary details of providing complete meeting minutes.  Farivar (2007) lists the benefits to distributing action minutes as they can be followed up on, and projects easily can be kept moving.  Including a topic labeled follow-up on last meeting’s action items as one of the first items on the agenda will help hold people accountable.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings of this report suggest productive meetings that contribute to an organization’s effectiveness and that do not unnecessarily detract from the bottom line do not just happen.  Running an effective meeting involves more than deciding on a place and time to meet.  In order to be effective, it is recommended that meetings need structure and order, and successful meetings occur with intended purpose, careful planning, and timely follow-up.  A purposeful objective, a well-thought-out agenda, and the intentional involvement of participants in the preparation, execution, and follow-up of a meeting all pay dividends in the effectiveness and success of both the meeting and organization as a whole. 

APPENDIX

Sample Questionnaire
1.              In your opinion, what is the biggest barrier to successful meetings in your organization?  Describe briefly.

2.              Generally speaking, how productive are the meetings in your organization?
a.              Very productive
b.              Somewhat productive
c.              Neither productive, nor non-productive
d.              Somewhat unproductive
e.              Very unproductive

3.              Although a professional business meeting’s agenda may contain many different components, a basic agenda contains the following items: Discussion topic, Discussion leader, Time allotted for discussion.  How often do the meetings in your organization contain a basic agenda?
a.              Most of the time
b.              Some of the time
c.              Never or almost never

4.              How often do you understand the desired purpose and outcome for the meetings you attend?
a.              Most of the time
b.              Some of the time
c.              Never or almost never

5.              Sometimes meetings are small, other times they are larger.  How often do the meetings you attend contain just the management and staff who are key to the process and decision-making, etc.?
a.              Most of the time
b.              Some of the time
c.              Never or almost never

6.              Meetings that run smoothly – even less formal meetings, often have individuals functioning in certain roles.  These roles include Facilitator, Discussion Leader, and Note/Action Item Taker.  How often do the meetings you attend contain these types of roles?
a.              Most of the time
b.              Some of the time
c.              Never or almost never


7.               How many meetings do you attend in a typical week?
a.              0 – 1
b.              2 – 4
c.              5 – 6
d.              Greater than 6

8.              Of the meetings you attend in your organization, roughly how many of them do you consider a waste of time?
a.              All of them
b.              Most of them
c.              Some of them
d.              None of them

9.              In your work experience, think back to any particularly well-run meetings you may have experienced.   List the top (3) components you feel contributed to their being well run.

10.           Research shows that bad meetings can cost an organization up to 20% of their payroll.  Think about how efficient and productive the meetings are in your organization.  If you had to guess, how close to the 20% mark (in terms of payroll) do poorly run, unproductive, and inefficient meetings cost your organization?
a.              20% or more
b.              15 – 20%
c.              10 – 15%
d.              0 – 1


WORKS CITED
Butler, A. S.  (1996, October).  Taking meetings by storm.  Management review, 85(10), p. 24.  Retrieved from ProQuest database, document ID:  10238391.
Cingoranelli, D.  (2001, January).  Successful meetings.  The CPA journal, 71(1), p. 58.  Retrieved from ProQuest database, document ID:  67331920.
Farivar, Cyrus.  (2007, April 9).  How to run an effective meeting.  Message posted to http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-51061211/how-to-run-an-effective-meeting/
Gallo, Carmine.  (2010, November 24).  Run more effective meetings.  Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/nov2010/sb20101123_788076.htm
Kolano, F.  (1995, December).  Kick off your meetings with a flare.  Quality progress, 28(12), p. 144.  Retrieved from ProQuest database, document ID:  9159934.
Roebuck, D. B. (2006).  Improving business communications skills (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Sargent, A. M.  (1959, June).  Techniques for successful meetings and conferences.  Journal of accountancy 107(6), p. 41.
Woods, R. H., & Berger, F.  (1988, August).  Making meetings work.  Cornell hotel and restaurant administration quarterly, 29(2), p. 100.