Iniciativas para reducir la informalidad empresarial en Colombia

The three meetings described above observed at Leeds were discussed in a thematic style in this sub-section. I purposively aimed at this selection of meetings as I felt that they would provide a wide variety of information, as well as produce a rich source of high quality data to compare and analyse. Another reason was convenience, as these meetings were held around the time of data collection for this stage. In this section, I discussed these key themes based on the data and findings from Leeds which emerged from the data itself in a grounded approach.

Context of the Meetings

In this section, I put the context of the three meetings in a collective manner aiming at reaching a common assumption about the context of meetings held at Leeds. Similarly to the

105

findings from the documents analysed, findings from observations showed that meetings were well organised and structured. All meetings observed were punctual and started promptly at the exact time specified. None of the attendees were late, which clearly demonstrated their commitment to the meeting. It could also be said that this showed that British culture respects and adheres to timing allocated for meetings, and respects punctuality. Some attendees had casual conversations between themselves with moderate humour, which demonstrated a very relaxed atmosphere in the meeting. I noticed that there were some attendees choosing to sit next to each other in different meetings. This theme has some implications on the key theme “power politics”, which will be discussed later in this chapter.

Meetings started with a welcome, presented by the Chairperson who then reviewed the key points, issues and actions arising from the previous meeting. Each of the attendees had a set of meeting papers with them. These papers were documents which related to agenda items or topics and issues due to be discussed in the meeting. In most cases, all the relevant documents were issued to attendees prior to meetings. In some meetings, however, additional documentation was also handed out during the meeting. The meeting commenced with an introduction by the Chairperson who addressed each agenda item in the same order as listed on the agenda. The meeting concluded with the Chairperson asking the group if anyone had anything to add or to question.

Social Interaction and Power Politics

The role of social interaction and its relation to power politics was clear in meetings. The first thing I noticed was the levels of social interaction between the different groups of attendees. The way in which the different colleagues addressed each other in the meeting was different and dependent upon the social relationship between the parties concerned, and the administrative level or academic status of the attendee. The level of collegial and social relationship was seen most clearly between members of academic staff. The first instance was the location in which the attendee was located. I noticed that staff members seemed to sit next to their peers of the same level of authority and status within the School. Social interaction between academic staff was also clear by the short conversations they had during meetings. I was curious to know what was being spoken about as this would be relevant to my research.

106

In observing how the members of academic staff interacted with each other, I got the impression that they sympathised with each other and were very supportive of each other’s views. This was apparent by the tone of voice used, and also by the way they looked at their colleagues when they spoke. This observation also relates to the issue of power politics, as it is evident that they were supporting and sympathising their fellow teachers.

Social interaction was also an issue when the academic members of staff interacted with other groups in the meeting (administrative members of staff and students). The way they interacted with students in the Student-Staff Forum Meeting was very interesting. It was also noticed that they acted as a mediator between students and the School administration. For example, during the meeting, one of the Research Postgraduate Student Representatives mentioned that their fellow students wanted to be involved in teaching at the School. The Postgraduate tutor responded to the student representative and advised that the School would discuss this suggestion further, outside of the meeting, and report back with their decision at a later date. The academic members of staff tried to demonstrate their understanding and support for their students. This observation also relates to power politics. It was apparent that the academic members of staff felt they were in alliance with students against the School administration in such a way that they appeared to be defending and supporting students and actively campaigning for their rights. I may be slightly premature in making such a final judgement of this issue at this early stage of my analysis; however, this would be a very interesting finding if proved to be true. It is also important to mention that students are a part of the power roles in the School. The School understands the importance of their power to the organisation, and this is why student representatives attend many of the School meetings. Interacting with people of administrative roles was felt to be more formal and less sympathetic.

Another issue, which related to issues of social interaction and power politics, was group support. The most important example here was that for the most part, whenever the Chairperson suggested an idea in the meeting, the vast majority of attendees agreed instantly. This was most clear to notice in the meeting that was chaired by the Head of School, which was the Student-Staff Forum Meeting. In all meetings I attended, there was not one instance whereby an attendee disagreed with the Chairperson.

107 Participation, Inclusion and Exclusion

It was noticed in meetings that all attendees participated in the meeting, which shows an active involvement by all attendees. It was also noticed that their views were somehow very similar, and this could show that they share similar organisational goals or beliefs. Participation was displayed in two ways. The first was discussion where the meeting attendees discussed several issues in the meeting. Discussions took place between the whole group and also within smaller groups around the table (two colleagues in most cases). In the School Learning and Teaching Committee Meeting there were seven instances of an attendee conversing and discussing with their colleague.

The second form of participation was presenting ideas and possible solutions for emerging problems. For example, the Chairperson mentioned a problem faced by the School and an attendee suggested a solution. This brought the discussion onto issues of inclusion and exclusion. It was noticed that not all ideas, suggestions or views were taken in the same way. For example, in the Student-Staff Forum Meeting, there were some discussions about the School financial issues. The Chairperson said that the School should be keen on reducing expenses and asked for any suggestions that may help to address this issue. Several suggestions were offered by the attendees and presented to the Chairperson. In some instances, the Chair showed admiration for a suggestion if he felt that this was a worthy option, and sometimes he did not. However, I could not understand on what basis he evaluated ideas and suggestions. On some other occasions, the Chairperson did not show admiration, but that suggestion was then supported and reinforced by another attendee of the meeting. In this instance, the Chairperson showed some interest.

Reaching and Making Decisions

The way decisions were made at meetings was shared, as attendees participated in all decisions. The meetings showed that there was some style of voting system used. The voting system was not explicitly conducted. The following example shows what happens here. In the Student–Staff Meeting, the Chairperson presented issues on reducing expenses, and decisions needed to be made. He presented the case saying that the University required strategies and practices where all Schools should reduce their expenses. He asked attendees “Do you think there are any possible strategies and practices where we can save money?”

108

Several suggestions were offered. Some suggestions were instantly opposed by some meeting members, and the Chairperson disregarded such suggestions. Other suggestions were welcomed by attendees or at least not opposed. The Chairperson then said “this is a good idea” and then he asks “what do you think?” Attendees shared their thoughts and opinions on that particular suggestion, and when the Chairperson saw there was agreement, or no opposition for a suggestion, a decision was then made. This process for decision-making was followed for many decisions in these meetings.

Another important issue related to decision-making was decision advisers. It was found that sometimes members of administrative staff were invited to meetings, and the Chairperson sometimes looked to them for support and advice on particular decisions. For example, in the STLC Meeting, the Chairperson asked the Postgraduate Student Recruitment Officer about the number of applicants in a particular programme, as decisions regarding that particular programme needed to be made. This instance showed the way the School used data from this source to support their decisions.