John Cleese put it aptly when he named one of his earliest training videos "Meetings, Bloody Meetings". Too often, meetings take on a life of their own, being time-consuming and badly planned, and resulting in unclear goals. The outcome is often a loose list of things to be done, without anyone really knowing who is supposed to do them.

The bottom line is that meetings are frequently a frustrating waste of time. It's little wonder then that former ICTU president Phil Flynn says" If I'm not satisfied that it has a purpose, I cancel it. Because meetings can become an end in themselves." However, meetings are an integral part of our lives. And they're here to stay.

But, if productive, they can offer huge benefits to participants. These may include:

Winning commitment to group decisions.

Providing a forum for people to generate ideas and solutions.

Building a collaborative team spirit within the group.

Providing feedback on how the group is progressing.

The experts agree on at least one crucial ingredient for successful meetings. That is, you must have an effective chair or facilitator. Thereafter however, consensus amongst the experts seems to dwindle. Or at least different authorities have different perspectives as to how meetings are best handled.

For example, in Consuelo O'Connor's collection, entitled The View From The Chair: The Art of Chairing Meetings, from Zircon Books, Jack Boothman, the former president of the GAA, advises us that: ". . . the sergeant-major approach, the army approach, won't work in everyday life. . . .You could get decisions and finish a meeting in 20 minutes but if you leave 10 very disgruntled people behind you that is not doing the GAA any good either."

Somewhat paradoxically, however, Gillian Bowler, who has extensive experience of the role in both the public and private sector, senses her impatient nature coming through as she advises us that: ". . . it is important in a competent chairman to have the ability to be tough. . . and you have to be thoroughly disciplined in the control of meetings. You run them efficiently and commercially. That to me is the number one rule."

Striking an interesting note in this respect is journalist and television presenter Olivia O'Leary who confides that: "I have to tone down what might seem like an abrupt interruption with a certain amount of humour. People can't be seen to object to humour." Useful advice, as long as you have the wit to implement it.

Bringing a Machiavellian perspective to proceedings, former Taoiseach Dr Garret FitzGerald reminds us that: ". . . .to initiate a discussion, the normal method is a tour de table. There are two ways, of course, of going around a table, left or right, and sometimes by switching it you might get a more positive result." The ability to anticipate who is going to say what, and getting them involved in the right order and at the right time, is undoubtedly an art form which only the most perceptive and skilled of chairs can bring to bear.

The same Machiavellian disposition is required if you're to deliver on Jack Boothman's advice in respect of groundwork in advance of meetings. He observes that: "It is better if every original idea is not seen to come from the chair. . . .I am a great man for consulting people. And then I would talk to the people who are most vocal and likely to voice opposition. . . .It is amazing when you do this they will come up later with the same idea as you had. They think it is their idea and then you are away in a hack."

This is clearly a polished art of the highest order. One of the most common and difficult scenarios facing the chair is disagreement amongst participants. Michael Smurfit, chairman of the Jefferson Smurfit Group, suggests: "If I got to an impasse on an issue I would put it on the agenda for the next meeting and say `let's all go away and think about this' ". Tanaiste Mary Harney adopts a similar approach, though she acknowledges that: "Hotheads can bring many people with them even though they are being totally unreasonable. You have to let them have their say and then shut them up." Offering us a solution to the impasse she advises: "In a difficult situation, a clever way to end a meeting is to pose questions and not answer them, leave things open and come away with a lot of power."

This view is shared by Tony O'Reilly. He cautions: "At a meeting people need to feel that they have had their day in court and that the scales of justice have been weighed fairly and evenly and that both points of view have been, if not reconciled, at least evaluated."

However, restraining one's own feelings in such scenarios is no easy task. According to Padraig O'hUiginn, a man of eminent experience at national and international fora in the chair's role: "A chairman must not allow himself to become annoyed with remarks which are addressed either to him or to another member of the committee.

"You must always be sympathetic with every viewpoint expressed and try to keep the temperature of the meeting cool, collected and calm." This entails not just listening to what's being said, but to how it's being said. One of the more vexed matters for the chair is how to handle the "Any Other Business" agenda item. Former Taoiseach Albert Reynolds cautions: "Do not have an AOB session."

In contrast, however, Padraig O hUiginn insists that "There should always be an AOB so that members are free to raise issues". Your decision in this regard may well be driven by whether you think you're approaching an ambush. Practical solutions to this dilemma include dropping AOB altogether, whilst adopting the following procedure:

All items for inclusion be sent to the chair one week before the meeting.

Any urgent, last minute, items be phoned to the chair 24 hours before the meeting.

The chair be informed of very last minute items before the meeting starts.

In all of these cases the chair retains the prerogative to decide whether or not to include them. The chair might then announce the inclusions at the beginning of the meeting so that everyone knows. This will help facilitate a more controlled use of time and a more effective meeting.

Ultimately the role of the chair is to control the conduct of the meeting so that the planned results or objectives are achieved. Let's leave the last word to Peter Sutherland, former attorney general and Director General of GATT: "GATT negotiations. . . . I was prepared to say that black was white if that would get an agreement."

Dr Gerard McMahon is a lecturer at the Faculty of Business, Dublin In- stitute of Technology. E-Mail: ppl1@indigo.ie