Project Management Meeting Facilitation

If safety is just a moment, it isn’t a mindset. We’ve all been in meetings that start this way. Item #1 on the agenda: Safety Moment. The intention is good, but the structure is flawed. By treating safety as the opening act, we unintentionally signal that it's separate from the main event, the "real work" of budgets, production, and strategy that follows. Once the moment is over, we move on. The box is ticked. This creates a dangerous "safety on, safety off" switch. But operational risks don't live in a two-minute window. They live inside project deadlines, budget constraints, and performance targets. A true safety mindset isn't an agenda item. It’s a lens through which we view the entire agenda. - When discussing a new project, we ask: "Have we designed the risk out from the start?" - When reviewing financials, we ask: "What are the hidden costs of our safety performance in these numbers?" - When setting targets, we ask: "Is this pressure creating an incentive for unsafe shortcuts?" The goal of a leader isn't just to host the safety moment. It's to embed these questions into every business conversation, moving safety from a preface to a core principle of performance. What is one question you use to weave safety into your operational meetings? #SafetyLeadership #SafetyCulture #HSE #Leadership #RiskManagement #ecoPortal

Eddie Jones on encircling the players with an environment that utilises personality and player characteristics appropriately… A balance and a blend…a keen mix of different ends of traits… “We cannot change what their parents can’t change…but we can optimise what they have” The science is interesting on this one. Traits are sticky. Human beings have a tendency towards certain traits with most people lying in the middle of a bell curve. It would be fair to say you can’t make an introvert and extrovert, or turn someone who tends to be disagreeable into someone who is agreeable. But you can certainly create an environment and engage in a set of coaching behaviours that optimises trait tendencies, and help players adapt their tendencies when required. For example, let’s imagine a player who tends to be very disagreeable. Perhaps this disagreeableness plays out in not wanting to be coached or in having arguments with teammates often. What science has shown is that coaches can do two things: 1. Help the player understand how this trait help them (and build on these advantages) 2. Help the player understand how this trait hinders them (and look to create an environment around them and a set of coaching behaviours that encourage this player to adapt this trait slightly). So the question is - what can be done to promote a little bit of adaptiveness. A few ideas (of many): 1. Just by explaining to the player how this trait hinders them builds self-awareness and can lead to change 2. Set goals around the desired behaviours (in the example above, to be more agreeable) and affirm support for the player in the process of attaining those goals 3. Attempt to upskill the player in the competencies required to adapt behaviour. For example, a player who is disagreeable and tends to get into arguments with teammates may need some anger management tools or some conversational tools. Again, emphasise your support during the upskilling process 4. Adapt your own communication with them. For example, if a disagreeable player doesn’t like to be coached by you then look to adapt your instructional style. Rather than direct instruction aimed at for autonomy-supportive coaching - make suggestions, negotiate different solutions, use data for evidence to convince and so on. Create an environment and engage in a set of coaching behaviours that optimises trait tendencies, and help players adapt their tendencies when required.

You think it is the weekend and you can finally switch off. Think again. When it comes to tech risks, there is no off switch. And this one deserves your full attention. A new class of apps is spreading across social media. They are marketed as smart productivity tools. You open the app on one device (phone). You join a video call on another device (laptop). The app listens to every word. Records all the audio. And when the meeting ends, it produces a polished transcript complete with takeaways, action points and tidy buckets of insight. It is “perfect” to use if your company or your school have blocked in-meeting AI note taking… The ads are running especially hard in the channels where Gen Z spends most of their time. Which means you should assume your youngest employees or students have already seen these tools and may be using them. The problem is risk. The moment an employee activates one of these apps inside your meeting, you lose control of the conversation. Three immediate threats stand out. Nonconsent. No one else in the meeting has agreed to be audio recorded, transcribed, or analyzed. Noncompliance. Sensitive content is being captured outside your governance structure, and outside of your jurisdiction, which puts you in direct conflict with privacy regulation, confidentiality obligations, and sector-specific rules. Data exposure. You do not know who built these apps. You do not know where the audio goes, which servers store it, who has access to it, how long it stays there, or what happens when an employee leaves. Many of these companies rely on data monetization models. The details of your meeting may already be part of someone else’s business plan. If you think your team is the only audience in the video meet you are mistaken. Every time one of these apps is switched on, you are effectively adding an invisible attendee: a tech company, an algorithm, and a network of third parties you cannot see. Leaders need to act swiftly. Your organization must clearly state what is permitted, what is prohibited, and what the consequences are. You need guidance published, communicated, and enforced. And you need it now. Your video meetings are wide open, to a world you have not invited. Who will you allow to listen?

Most nonprofit boards of Directors don’t think enough about risk. They assume risk management is the finance committee’s job. Or the executive director’s. And most nonprofit boards only talk about risk in two situations: • When the annual audit forces the conversation • When something bad happens By then, it’s already too late. Here’s how to shift to a proactive risk strategy in five steps: 1. 𝗡𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸𝘀 𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗡𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗬𝗼𝘂 If your board isn’t talking about risk, it’s not because risks don’t exist. It’s because you haven’t identified them yet. • Financial risks (financial mismanagement, budget shortfalls) • Operational risks (tech failure, leadership transitions) • Reputational risks (poor crisis response, ethical missteps) Write them down. Make them visible. 2. 𝗥𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝗟𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗱 & 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 Not all risks are created equal. Use a simple metric: ✅ High likelihood, high impact → Requires immediate action. ⚠️ High likelihood, low impact → Manage with systems. 🔍 Low likelihood, high impact → Have a contingency plan. 3. 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗢𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 If everyone owns a risk, no one does. Assign specific risks to board committees or individuals. 4. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮 𝗜𝘁𝗲𝗺 After assigning risk ownership, make identified risk areas a standing board agenda item, not a one-time discussion. Spend 5 -10 minutes each board meeting reviewing key risks in order of importance to your organization. 5. 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵.     This way, urgent issues don’t get buried while still preparing for long-term stability.     -> Start with the risks that require immediate action. The ones that could quickly derail your mission if left unaddressed. (Financial mismanagement, key leadership resignation). -> Then, tackle risks that need a contingency plan. Those low-probability but high-impact events could cause major disruption. (Data breach or a PR crisis). -> Finally, focus on risks that can be managed with systems. The ongoing challenges that can be controlled with the right processes in place. (Mission drift, board turnover). ----- Start now, and by the end of this year, your board will be a more proactive, resilient, and mission-focused organization. Ignoring risk won’t make it disappear. It will show up anyway. And when an unplanned issue pops up (there is always something), you'll have a starting point to work from, even if it's not exactly the risk you already identified. Is your board ready for the risks ahead?

If you've ever sat in a meeting room with executives playing "pick a color" risk management ("Is cybersecurity red or yellow this quarter?") and I sure have, this one's for you. If you're just joining: I'm sharing 32 specific mindset shifts from my upcoming book that help risk professionals transition from traditional risk management (heat maps, gut feelings) to decision-based risk using quantification. We're in THEME 3: EVIDENCE & REASONING - shifting from gut instinct to systematic thinking that actually improves decision-making quality. This week we're tackling one of the most subtle barriers in risk management: the difference between getting everyone comfortable and getting closer to a good answer. 10. Agreement Seeking → Belief Updating Traditional Risk: Spend meetings negotiating until everyone can "live with" the risk rating. Success means the room agrees - whether it's "medium risk" or "7 out of 10." Decision-Based Risk: Focus on systematically updating beliefs when new evidence arrives. Start with your best estimate, then let each new data point refine your assessment rather than starting the negotiation over. Mindset Shift: Retrain your brain from asking "What can we all agree on?" to "What does this evidence tell us about our previous estimate?" When new information arrives, the goal isn't renewed consensus, it's improved accuracy. Here's what this looks like in practice: Instead of "Let's discuss whether this is still a medium risk," try "I estimated 30% likelihood last quarter, but this new threat intelligence suggests we should update to 40-45%. Here's why." The difference is profound. Agreement seeking optimizes for group comfort. Belief updating optimizes for getting closer to reality. One treats risk assessment as diplomacy, the other as systematic reasoning. Next week: We'll explore how superforecasting skills can transform individual expertise into disciplined prediction capabilities. #RiskManagement #RiskQuantification #CRQ #FAIR

Risk management rarely is referred to as such. It usually comes disguised as urgent problems that may trigger strong emotions like fear, surprise or anticipation. More likely, it sounds like : “Hey, XYZ stopped working during last nights production run, we re-installed the software and we’re having an emergency meeting at 7 am because we have another run scheduled at 9.” Fear, confusion and urgency are normal but can cloud proper risk management and consideration for product quality and patient safety. Naturally, this sparks thoughts of: “Shoot, was this my / my team’s fault?” “Oops we should have caught that.” “Bringing X up is bad optics and I miss a promotion/raise.” While it’s normal for emotions to strike, we tend to shift to “how can I make this as pleasant as possible for me/ my team”. What we need to be doing instead is getting objectively curious. ICH Q9: “In relation to pharmaceuticals, although there are a variety of stakeholders, including patients and medical practitioners as well as government and industry, the protection of the patient by managing the risk to quality should be considered of prime importance.” ❔How often are you hearing and using the phrase “patient safety” and “product quality” in these urgent meetings? ❔How often are you incorporating feedback into your data governance framework? #RiskManagement #DunamisCompliance

In today’s diverse classrooms, a one-size-fits-all approach simply doesn’t work. That’s where adaptive teaching steps in. It’s not about creating three versions of every lesson—it’s about responding in real time to students’ needs, using assessment and professional judgment to make meaningful adjustments. Current research supports this shift: - EEF champions adaptive teaching as more effective than fixed differentiation—especially for supporting disadvantaged and SEND learners. - Ofsted no longer emphasizes “differentiation” in lesson planning, but looks for evidence of adaptation during delivery. - Dylan Wiliam reminds us: “Flexible learning, not multiple lesson plans.” - John Hattie’s meta-analyses highlight the power of formative assessment (effect size 0.77) and teacher clarity (0.84)—core elements of adaptive teaching—in accelerating progress. In practice, it means: 1) Checking for understanding continuously 2) Re-teaching or re-framing based on student responses 3) Scaffolding with purpose 4) Keeping expectations high—for EVERY student Let’s move beyond rigid planning and embrace a more dynamic, learner-centered approach. #AdaptiveTeaching #TeachingAndLearning #EducationResearch #EEF #VisibleLearning #EdLeadership #InstructionalStrategies #TeacherDevelopment

I've sat in hundreds of executive team meetings. So many teams default to open discussion for everything. Yet, different work requires different approaches.  • Debating options  • Surfacing risks  • Making a decision  • Generating ideas These are different activities. They require different structures. 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸𝘀, 𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀: • 2 minutes silent writing • Each person ranks their top 2 risks • Go around and share ONE risk each (no repeats) • If your second risk wasn’t named, add it • Facilitator synthesizes patterns before opening discussion 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘀, 𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀: • Break into small groups • Give a clear prompt • Time-box ideation • Have each group share what they generated If you’re facilitating, ask yourself: based on what you’re hoping to accomplish, what set up will elicit the range of views and depth of thinking you’re seeking? 👉🏾 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗳𝘂𝗹, 𝗯𝗲𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻??

TEACHING ARCHETYPES . Effective teaching isn’t about mastering one style ,it’s about knowing when to shift. In my experience, the strongest classroom environments are led by educators who can adapt in real time. Teaching requires a level of professional agility ,moving between roles as the needs of the lesson (and the learners) evolve. THE POWER OF THE PIVOT A successful lesson often involves cycling through multiple approaches: THE DEMONSTRATOR – guiding the I Do phase with clear, explicit modelling. This is where the teacher breaks down the learning, thinks aloud, and makes the process visible so students understand not just what to do, but how and why. THE CIRCULATOR – supporting the We Do phase through active engagement. Moving around the classroom, checking for understanding, offering timely feedback, and gently correcting misconceptions to keep all learners on track. THE FACILITATOR – stepping back during the You Do phase to build independence. Here, the teacher creates space for students to apply their learning, encouraging problem-solving, confidence, and ownership while remaining available for support when needed. The real skill lies in situational awareness reading the room and responding with intention. STEPPING BEYOND THE DEFAULT We all have a natural tendency. Some of us are more interactive, others more structured. But growth happens when we stretch beyond what feels comfortable. What does it look like to: Move from commanding to facilitating Shift from static to roaming Balance authority with autonomy These are the shifts that shape more responsive, inclusive classrooms. I’m curious to hear from fellow educators: Which of these styles do you find most challenging to master? What’s your default,and which approach are you intentionally developing? Let’s share perspectives.

Ever left a meeting knowing something just shifted, but you couldn't quite name it? You replay the moment later and realize: The decision didn't move. Your position weakened. And it happened quietly. At senior levels in Financial Services, influence is rarely lost through poor arguments. It's lost through language. This isn't a confidence issue. It's power literacy. Because in high-stakes rooms, power rarely announces itself. It reframes risk. Here are a few phrases that sound neutral — but carry weight: • "Compliance may have concerns." • "Let's ensure ExCo is fully aligned before progressing." • "I'm just playing devil's advocate…" • "We need to be mindful of optics." • "Leadership has some reservations." On the surface, these appear responsible. Reasonable. Collaborative. Underneath, they often do one of three things: • Introduce doubt without owning opposition • Delay momentum under the guise of alignment • Shift perceived risk onto you If you can't read it in real time, you respond at face value. If you can read it, you respond strategically. For example: "I'm just playing devil's advocate." What it appears to be: intellectual rigor. What it often is: dissent without accountability. A calibrated response might be: "Helpful — can you clarify which specific risk you see materializing?" Now the risk has to be named. Owned. Assessed. Power stays in the open. In my executive coaching and advisory work I see these moments come up constantly. Not because senior leaders lack capability. But because the higher you go, the more influence is negotiated through subtext. No defensiveness. No escalation. Just precision. The room always tells you what's happening. The question is whether you're trained to hear it. If you're navigating complex decision dynamics at MD or ExCo level, this is the work.