Photo credit: www.higheredjobs.com
Are your formal meetings bogged down by convoluted parliamentary procedures? With motions, seconds, amendments, and points of order filling the air, discussions may become stilted or outright prohibited if they don’t align with established protocols. Frequently, issues are hastily decided upon or postponed, stifling meaningful dialogue. This can result in decisions reflecting the opinions of a few rather than the collective will of the group.
If this scenario resonates with you, it’s likely that the meetings are being conducted according to Robert’s Rules of Order, an extensive set of guidelines from the late 19th century. While many organizations adopt these rules through their bylaws, it’s important to note that there is no legal requirement mandating their use. The adherence to such antiquated methods can stem from entrenched practices, a lack of creativity, or the assumption that this is the requisite manner of conducting business.
This article explores the implications of relying on Robert’s Rules and examines alternative approaches that foster collaboration and consensus.
The Value and Purpose of Robert’s Rules
Robert’s Rules of Order were developed in 1876 by U.S. Army Officer Henry Martyn Robert to provide a framework for parliamentary procedure modeled after the U.S. Congress, applicable to non-legislative groups. These rules aim “to enable assemblies of various sizes to arrive at a collective decision efficiently while considering every member’s perspective.” The guidelines encompass a range of procedures, ensuring majority and minority opinions are duly acknowledged and facilitating structured debate and voting on a variety of issues.
For larger organizations, such structured processes can mitigate chaos and ensure effective outcomes. In such contexts, Robert’s Rules may prove advantageous, particularly for handling agendas, minutes, and contentious discussions in formal gatherings like trustee meetings or faculty governance in academic settings.
Limitations and Drawbacks
However, many groups do not necessitate the degree of formality that Robert’s Rules prescribe. The challenges inherent in enforcing these rules are evident.
The latest edition spans 816 pages, with even the “in brief” version being a still substantial 224 pages. Simplified cheat sheets present additional challenges, often outlining various motion types that require precise understanding for proper application. Smaller organizations may not have access to dedicated parliamentarians needed for proper implementation of the Rules. In instances where strict compliance is demanded, challenges to decisions based on technicalities might arise, binding groups to their own bylaws.
Furthermore, Robert’s Rules may hinder full participation, allowing individuals well-versed in the procedures to dominate discussions and intimidate less experienced members. Authors Lawrence Susskind and Jeffrey Cruikshank in their work “Breaking Robert’s Rules: The New Way to Run Your Meeting, Build Consensus, and Get Results, argue that while the Rules support the principle of “majority rules,” they fail to adequately safeguard minority rights. They highlight that effective decisions often do not emerge from processes that restrict participants’ abilities to reconsider issues or propose alternative views than those immediately on the table.
There Are Better Ways To Run Meetings
Susskind and Cruikshank advocate for “breaking Robert’s Rules” by employing a consensus-driven approach, defined by Merriam-Webster as a general agreement or collective judgment within a group. They propose a five-stage model to facilitate this:
- Convene: Bring together the right people, fostering an environment with clear expectations about the discussions to take place. This includes assessing interests and determining key stakeholders.
- Assign Roles and Responsibilities: Establish ground rules for participation and clarify the roles of each member within the process.
- Group Problem Solve: Encourage collaboration to generate proposals that consider all perspectives and foster better outcomes than unaided negotiation.
- Reach Agreement: Invite feedback on proposals, with a focus on listening to dissenting voices and adapting plans to embrace their concerns.
- Hold People to Their Commitments: Create an agreement that balances strictness and flexibility, ensuring accountability while remaining open to future adjustments.
By focusing on creating more effective meetings, groups can develop rules aligned with shared values that facilitate understanding and collaboration. Such frameworks prioritize outcomes over procedural formality, emphasizing the importance of inclusive, respectful dialogue. The application of consensus processes can be tailored to fit the nature and objectives of various types of groups, offering a modern and adaptable alternative to rigid, exclusionary practices rooted in earlier methodologies.
Source
www.higheredjobs.com