How would you assess your groups meeting objective, agenda, delegation of roles, room set-up, opening, participation,

decision making, and follow-up? The meeting agenda of group was to discuss the issue of Jim Wescotts salary increase and inform him about the denial of any salary increase by HR department. Robin Banks was the HR representative. This was a serious concern considering that Jims salary increase was apparent t other employees and it wasnt taken favorably. This was creating distrust in team which could lessen the credibility of Erik Peterson. The seating arrangement decided for Jim and Robin was confrontational which is appropriate as Robin had to inform Jim about his salary request being denied. Jim would obviously object on this so it was good to make these two people sit across each other. Erik was facilitator in the meeting whose role was to control and channelize the meeting to a mutual consensus. Erics seating arrangement was between Jim and Robin which is suitable for a facilitator. The opening of the meeting lacked in clarity of agenda. The first half of the meeting went without Eriks participation as discussions went on between Robin and Jim. An early participation could have helped Jim to get good insight of the current situation. The decision making approach was collaborative but Jim had to reluctantly accept the final decision. This could have been more participative. The follow-up for meeting was well communicated by Robin. A facilitator taking a follow-up would have been more appropriate.