describe one of your worst meetings and analyze why it was so bad

Describe one of your worst meetings and analyze why it was so bad in light of the resources discussed in readings and in class.As a reminder, here are some of the tools we have discussed (or will have discussed by the time your paper is due):.

  • Facilitation Diamond, including convergent, divergent, and integrative (the “groan zone”) conversation;
  • Structure—both tangible and intangible elements—including macrostructure, microstructure, and structural elements;
  • Purpose, including tangible and intangible desired outcomes, and SMART and “Everest” goals;
  • People, including the role of cognitive diversity and concepts in stakeholder analysis;
  • Visual representations, including when and why they can be useful.

Having diagnosed the causes of the unsatisfactory meeting, now re-imagine that meeting. Visualize what design and implementation changes could make it one of the best meetings in which you could have participated. Write a description of your re-imagined experience, including the planning (that probably could have happened but didn’t) as well as the execution. Provide specific examples of the tools, frameworks, and preparation you include in the re-imagined meeting and explain why they can contribute to making the meeting much more productive and satisfying.

Describe what you conclude from this reflective experiment and articulate the questions it raises for you.

This assignment is similar to a “reflection paper.”You may want to skim https://www.wikihow.com/Write-a-Reflection-Paper, especially if you feel resistance in getting started (or finishing) your paper.

Page Length: 2 pages.

Description of unsatisfactory meeting and analysis of causes

  • Refers to frameworks, tools, elements discussed in class
  • Explains how elements affected participants and contributed to unsatisfactory outcomes
  • Refers to frameworks, tools, elements discussed in class
  • Explains how elements affected participants and contributed to unsatisfactory outcomes
  • Provides synthesis in describing re-imagined meeting (not just the superficial opposite of what didn’t work originally)

/25

Description of visualized meeting and analysis of causes

/25

Conclusions and questions raised from the reflective experiment

  • Demonstrates substantive thought
  • Focuses on applying tools and frameworks pragmatically

/10

Professionalism of writing

  • Organization, context provision, flow (headings and subheadings used, in addition to transitions)
  • Quality of writing (complete sentences, no fragments; minimal grammar errors; no misspellings or punctuation errors)

/20

Total

/80