How to organise and hold productive executive meetings – 4

Timely sharing of meeting documents is essential for effective meetings. For management meetings, packages should be shared at least two days in advance, while board and committee meetings require at least two weeks. This allows members to prepare, engage meaningfully and make informed contributions. For bulky or complex submissions, earlier delivery, sometimes up to a month, is necessary to ensure quality discussions.

While the use of soft copies for meeting packages is highly encouraged, it remains important to maintain at least one hard copy for archival purposes. This serves as a reliable backup and is stored in the organisation’s physical archives. Signed minutes and key documents should also be scanned and stored digitally. Soft copies ease document retrieval during audits, examinations, or future meetings and serve as a safeguard against physical loss or damage. For security and accessibility, the use of a secured cloud storage solution such as OneDrive is recommended.

Secretaries should ensure that minutes focus strictly on resolutions, deliberations and directives, not the full detail of discussions. Names of individual contributors should be excluded to promote collective ownership and avoid undue attribution. It is the responsibility of chairpersons to summarise and highlight key resolutions and directives after each agenda item, ensuring that all members agree before they are formally recorded. Once captured in the minutes, these resolutions become a binding and collective decision of the group. This practice not only improves the quality and clarity of records but also enhances accountability and facilitates follow-up actions.

Decisions in meetings are ideally reached through open discussion and consensus, with the chairperson guiding deliberations and ensuring clarity. Where consensus cannot be reached, the matter may be put to a vote involving only voting members. The chairperson is advised to cast their vote last, especially where they hold a tie-breaking (veto) vote, to preserve neutrality during initial deliberations. Once a resolution is adopted by majority, it becomes binding on all members and forms part of the official record.

When a member disagrees with a resolution and specifically wishes their position on the agenda to go on record, their position may be formally recorded as a dissenting view. However, the member remains bound by the majority decision. While striving for unanimous decisions is ideal to maintain unity and cohesion, different opinions may be recorded where necessary. That said, frequent dissent from a particular member is not expected and may signal deeper concerns. Repeated dissent can be unhealthy for the spirit of teamwork and may hinder constructive dialogue if not addressed properly.

A clear time line for the implementation of each deliberation and directive must be stated in the minutes, along with the responsible person, preferably identified by the title rather than by name. These resolutions and directives will form the basis of “matters arising” in the subsequent meeting during which the responsible person will be required to submit an update explaining clearly the implementation status.

Members expect directives to be implemented within the agreed time line. If implementation is delayed, proper explanation must be provided along with a formal request for an extension. The matter will continue to be tracked and followed up in the subsequent meetings until it is fully implemented.

It is the responsibility of the chairperson to ensure that the time lines for implementation are realistic, well-assessed and agreed upon by all members. This requires balancing urgency with feasibility, especially for technical matters. For instance, my experience has shown that ICT-related issues frequently lead to shifting time lines. While ICT personnel may initially request short deadlines due to urgency, the actual implementation often takes longer than expected. Members on the other hand, tend to push for faster delivery. It is crucial for chairpersons to understand this tendency and provide realistic timeframes to ensure quality implementation, rather than rushing through matters prematurely.

In cases where the implementation of matters arising continues to face delays, appropriate measures should be taken against the responsible parties after establishing the facts. If it becomes clear that the matter cannot be implemented for justifiable reasons, it may be formally removed from the list of matters arising. However, if non-implementation is found to be due to lack of seriousness or commitment, those accountable must face consequences accordingly.

In the next week’s instalment, I will continue discussing making appropriate follow-ups and the importance of maintaining proper meetings proceedings in soft form. I will also start discussing factors to be considered in order to make quality decisions.

Dr Muhsin Salim Masoud is a seasoned banker and academic, who has also served as managing director of the People’s Bank of Zanzibar and Amana Bank. [email protected]