King Arthur’s round table was created to signify that all sitting at the table were equal.
Students in law school are often told of a jury room that had a round table installed for the first time. The story says that this room produced more hung juries than ever before. When the round table was replaced by a more traditional rectangular table, the story says, the juries using the room began to reach verdicts.
With a round table like King Arthur’s, it appears that no one is in charge. With all members appearing equal, it is hard to come to a decision, in spite of the fact that a leader or foreperson has been named.
A Long, Thin Table Encourages Cliques
When I was president of a nonprofit organization, the worst board meeting that I ever led was one in which we were in temporary quarters and had about five patio-style tables strung together to make a rectangular table. These tables were very narrow, designed for small groups of two to four people to have intimate conversations with one another.
When we strung them together, we ended up with a table about 15 feet long but only three feet wide. What happened in the meeting was that people across from one another at the table began to talk to one another instead of listening to me. (I don’t usually have this problem.) Those at the far end paid less attention to me than those close up, but all did a fair amount of gossiping. The meeting lasted more than an hour, and little was accomplished.
I observed a similar phenomenon at a meeting where two narrow folding tables were put together, end to end. The people at each of the tables informally formed a clique. There was some gossiping, and in general, members at each table agreed with those at their table and not with those at the other table.
Face-to-Face at a Distance Encourages Rudeness
On the other hand, when tables are arranged in a U-shape, all participants are quite far away from one another. They are looking directly at one another and not at the leader. I have noticed that the participants in this setup are more combative with one another, often shaking their fingers and berating those across the “U” from them.
The Basic Solution: A Rectangular Table with Proper Width
We can see that the relative proximity of attendees to one another is important, as is the location of the leader.
The attendees need to be close enough that they feel they cannot say rude, threatening things to one another but far enough away that they cannot form unruly cliques.
I propose, therefore, that the best conference table is one that is rectangular but wide enough to prevent those on either side from easily whispering to one another—about five feet. The chairs need to be positioned so that one foot of space is provided between participants. The leader sits (or, better yet, stands) at one end.
The Perfect Solution: A One-Ended Rectangular Table
If the leader wants to take every advantage, the table should have only one end, where the leader stands. The far end should be pushed against a wall. The leader should put his or her most loyal supporters at the end nearest to him or her and his or her opponents at the farthest end.
About the Author
Ruth Haag (www.ruthhaag.com) helps managers and employees understand the dynamics of the work environment and how to function smoothly within it. She is the president/CEO of Haag Environmental Company. She has also written a four-book business series: Taming Your Inner Supervisor, Day-to-Day Supervising, Hiring and Firing, and Why Projects Fail. Her enjoyable, easy-to-read books provide a look at life the way it is, rather than the way you might think it should be.
