The UK has been captivated in last few days by a viral video of highlights from a meeting of Handforth Parish Council, and Jackie Weaver has become something of a hero: the 'grown up' in the room. One participant in the Zoom meeting declared "you have no authority here Jackie Weaver!" shortly before being removed from the meeting. Where does 'authority' in a meeting come from?

I know nothing of the context or whether Jackie Weaver really did or didn't 'have authority' in the way the man meant, but this phrase made me think about the different kinds of authority that people have in meetings, and where it comes from.

Five types of authority

Formal (legal) authority - in the world of Terms of Reference and formal meetings, especially in tiers of government from national parliaments to parish councils, there are recognised positions like Chair or Speaker. It's clear who is in this position, and who is 'next in line' if that person is unable to fulfil their duties. The rules about how you get to be in this position, how you can be removed from it, and how you can run the meeting are often written in some detail. The rules can be complex and not easy to follow. Jackie Weaver was exhorted to "Read the standing orders! Read them and understand them!"

Charisma, personal authority - there are individuals who seem to exude a 'natural authority'. Others look to them for leadership and wait to hear what they think before agreeing with them. Jackie Weaver's ability to stay calm in the face of shouting and anger from other people in the meeting who completely lost it, is what won over her viral fans.

Seniority, privilege - I have often found myself in meetings where the most senior person (or the most senior white man) is just expected to play the 'chair' role. Even when I'm the facilitator, I will often ask the client team whether there's someone who needs to welcome everyone and hand over to me: symbolically and openly passing to me the authority they would otherwise have been expected to exercise by everyone else in the room.

Technical know-how and the right settings or permissions - new for the virtual meeting era, and with no obvious equivalent 'in the room', being the 'host' in a Zoom meeting means you can decide whether other people can contribute by speech or text, switch their cameras off or even remove them from the meeting altogether. Other platforms have other names for this role, and the detail of what you can do will vary slightly too. Unlike asking a bouncer to remove someone from the room in a physical meeting - which is a nuclear option which everyone will see and be affected by - removing someone from a virtual meeting happens silently and instantaneously. It is a strange combination of ultimate sanction and low drama. If you have the right settings and know how to use the features they give you access to, you have the power even if you exercise it 'without authority'.

Authority through consent - and at last we come to the classic group facilitator. A facilitator can only do their job with the consent of the group. They make process suggestions and enable a conversation about ground rules or working agreements 'for this meeting' or 'for this group', but they do not decide these things alone or compel people to go along with them. They may draw attention to behaviour which is outside of those agreements. If things really 'kick off' they will (I hope), like Jackie Weaver, not get drawn into the argument or lose their temper but stay calm. This mandate from the group should mean that any concerns about the facilitator's 'authority' are resolved before the meeting gets underway. Critically, an independent facilitator stays out of the content, doesn't have an 'interest' in the decisions made by the group, and doesn't take sides. There is no 'casting vote' - a key difference between a facilitator and a chair.

What are we arguing about when we argue about process?

People who express anger about process (the standing orders not being followed, meetings being called 'illegally') may have a genuine point, and may be satisfied when the process is brought back in line with whatever has been previously agreed (or when it's established that - in fact - the agreed process is being followed). But it's rare for a disagreement to be only about process. Process is brought into the spotlight when people are concerned that their own interests or needs are in danger of losing out to interests or needs which conflict with them. The 2020 US presidential election is a technicolour example of this. I don't know what the Parish Councillors of Handforth were really arguing about alongside or beneath their process dispute - but it didn't look like they were ready to give a mandate to a facilitator to help them resolve it.

Making the Path by Walking

This blog post was first published in my newsletter, Making the Path by Walking, in February 2021. Scroll right down to subscribe.