 |
Meetings large and small were often part of our work.
Here is a view of the annual gathering of the Thailand
Karen Baptist Churches in 2005 |
I’ve mentioned meetings in this blog before and if one has
read many of our posts in the past, it is apparent that meetings of one kind or
another were a big part of our work. So at the risk of being repetitive, I’d
like to point out some of the cultural differences between having a meeting in
the US and having a meeting on the other side of the world.
Apparently, a US army engineer and general named Henry
Martyn Robert first published his rules of order in 1876. As of 2020, it seems
we are now on the 12th edition of these rules (though I doubt General
Robert himself has had much to do with recent editions). At various times
throughout my career, I’ve been told that I was to lead meetings according to
Robert’s Rules. I even have a vague memory of being given an official Robert’s
Rules of Order book and reading some of it (or did I read the whole thing?). Reading
the official rules though, made it apparent that most people have their own
notions about how a meeting should be conducted and just assume that General
Robert agrees with them.
 |
US Meetings need to be fast and efficient.
Meetings in Thailand usually needed to let people
feel relaxed. |
In the US, whether Robert’s Rules are fully invoked or severely
adapted, a meeting should be quick and efficient. The chair person’s duty is to
keep people on task. Getting off the subject is not allowed. People speak only
when recognized and have limited time to make their point. Once the point is
made, it’s made. Maybe the chair will allow some rebuttal or maybe not. The
discussion culminates in a precisely worded vote as soon as all interested
parties have had a concise say in the matter. The vote is final, then we move
on. Some in the US can chair these kinds of meetings with admirable skill and
finesse leaving attendees feeling they’ve had their say with no one feeling offended.
A US meeting should not waste time. We want to honor the people in the meeting
by honoring their time.
 |
Some meetings went well into the night. Here evangelists
in the Umphang area are meeting. |
Speed and efficiency was not the priority in meetings with
churches and villages in Thailand in general and in our case with the Karen.
The chair person was mainly tasked with making everyone feel accepted, valued
and welcome. That usually involved some congenial chit-chat before the real
issues were discussed. Once the real discussion began, the goal was to give everyone
their say. Drifting from the main subject matter at hand was fine, especially
if it involved a funny story or allowed the speaker time to air his or her pet
peeve or campaign for some unrelated issue. It was also critical for the chair to
know just who the real leaders and people with influence were within the group.
The real leaders, among all others were definitely to be given their say, and especially
so, if they were last to speak. What they said might well settle the matter so
they definitely couldn’t be cut short.
 |
| Here I am making a point in Klaw Taw Village in 2005 |
So, in the US we honor people by conserving their time. In
Thailand, meeting goers honored each otherby giving their time to let others
know they were accepted and valued. Neither system is wrong, but if anything is
to be accomplished, one must understand what system is in place at a particular
meeting. I’ve seen some missionaries try to impose a Robert’s Rules kind of meeting
in the wrong place and it did not go well. A leader felt cut off too quickly,
didn’t feel they had their say and relationships were seriously strained or
maybe ruined. In an occupation based on relationships, meetings were a place
where we needed to be something of cultural chameleons, ready to change our
colors on short notice.
Comments
Post a Comment