Communication in meetings Project (20%)
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Work to be submitted:
1) The memo to be sent to all attendees (5%)
2) The agenda of the meeting (5%)
3) The meeting minutes (5%)
Conducting the meeting (5%)
See below the Instructor's comments on the meetings.
The grade given for each team is the overall grade for the whole project (20%) which includes the memo, the agenda, the minutes and the meeting.
Groups:
Group A:
1. Maria Anastasiou
2. Charikleia Platonos
3. Aphrodite Antoniou
4. Despo Poulli
The meeting was conducted very smoothly. The chairperson's role was clear and determining. She guided the discussion very effectively. All attendees participated with spontaneity even though they had notes to read from. The meeting included voting, decision-making, arrangement of the next meeting, adverts of products, etc. Overall, a very well-prepared activity. Grade: 95%
Group B:
1. Christina Georgiou
2. Ivy Nicoletti
3. Andreas Andreou
4. Klelia Aristotelous
The role of the chairperson as well as of the other participants was clear. The chairperson guided the course of discussion. However, the meeting was quite brief and it ended quite abruptly. Also, it did not appear to be very natural as participants were heavily relied on their notes. Grade: 85%
Group C:
1. Lambriana Savva
2. Froso Georgiadou
3. Iliana Hadjigeorgiou
The meeting was conducted in a calm and friendly atmosphere. Participants had clear roles and responsibilities, but the chair dominated the conversations. Interaction among attendees was minimal and there wasn't much spontaneity as participants were mostly reading from their notes. The meeting was rather brief. Grade 85%
Group D:
1. Anthie Yerolemou
2. Marina Kouali
3. Christina Markou
4. Andreas Vassiliou
The meeting was carried out in a calm and constructive atmosphere. Opinions were expressed, suggestions were made and decisions were taken. The team remained focused for the whole time and it was clear that the meeting had been well prepared. However, the chair had a dominant role and monopolized most the the discussions even though he made attempts to promote interaction. The roles of the other participants were not very clear. Also, all participants spoke with a rather low voice during the whole meeting. Grade: 90%
Group E:
1. Stavri Mama
2. Chrysanthi Menelaou
3. Mikaella Antoniou
4. Maria Ellina
The chairperson had a dominant role while the other roles were not very clear. There was interaction among participants with some degree of spontaneity. The tone of voice was good. There was a complete, timed agenda with clear objectives even though these were not mentioned at the beginning. It was good that the chair summarized important points. Suggestions were made, decisions were taken, new ideas were proposed and the next meeting was arranged. Grade: 90%
Group F:
1. Christiana Tousiou
2. Andria Neocleous
3. Antonia Nicolaou
4. Michalis Diamanti
The chairperson had a leading role. Participants established eye contact amongst them and discussions were carried out in a conversational tone. However, there were some long pauses that stopped the flow of the dialogue. Opinions were expressed and responsibilities were given to participants. Attendees commented on all items of the agenda. Disagreements among attendees were handled effectively. The next meeting was also arranged. Grade: 88%
Group G:
1. Demetra Loizidou
2. Katerina Liasidou
3. Maria Prodromou
4. George Charalambous
The meeting had a clear agenda but roles were not clearly identified. All attendees participated in the discussions but with a minimal degree of spontaneity as they were heavily relied on their notes. Opinions were expressed, but eye contact was not very much achieved. The chairperson made attempts to promote interaction and dialogues among participants. There was reference to the previous and the next meetings as well as approval of the previous meeting minutes. Grade 88%
Group H:
1. Andri Mavrou
2. Ioanna Pata
3. Constantina Nathanael
4. Aspasia Vassiliou
The role of the chair was dominant, powerful and dynamic. There was a clear agenda and an outline of the meeting which was announced by the chair at the beginning. The team stayed on track. However, roles were not very clear. The chair made attempts to promote interaction, but the other participants took part with presentations of their ideas rather than with actual conversations. It was good that the chair summarized each presentation though. Suggestions were made and decisions were taken. All topics had been carefully prepared. Grade: 88%
Well done everybody!!!
