There are a number of ways to answer this question. The short answer is yes! In this post I will give you some tips on what to do in a meeting. In another post I will help you create some context for these kinds of dilemmas and guide your thinking.

Here’s a recap of the situation my friend, Alan, encountered. Alan had been in a meeting with a colleague, Amy, who was proposing that one of their working teams could meet a particular goal with fewer resources than had been offered in the past. Alan was on board with the effort but felt that the resources needed to be higher to support the project’s success. He questioned Amy’s decision on resource allocation and cited several recent examples.

Amy eventually said that Alan wasn’t being collegial or collaborative anymore, because he was disagreeing with her. Alan was left wondering how to challenge without alienating someone.

Collaboration typically refers to the process of a group of people working together in the pursuit of a shared goal. The verb “challenging” often refers to an act of questioning or to taking exception to something. These two notions are not mutually exclusive. It’s important to explore issues thoroughly before making decisions; one process is to engage in divergent thinking before you converge or make a decision. Groups need to be able to disagree and have healthy conflict in order to work at their best. In a very real sense, to do good collaborative work together you must be able to exchange ideas, perspectives and differences in healthy ways.

In a meeting when you want to question someone and still be seen as collaborating, it’s helpful to:

1. Make your intentions clear. Before countering or questioning, especially if you feel some resistance, declare your intention. “I am in support of this (whatever it is) and I want to be sure we do this really well. My questioning or thoughts are an attempt to help us do this project really well.”
2. Make sure they see you as aiming for the same goal. Acknowledge where you agree with them or support them first. You want them to perceive you as on their team.
3. Focus on the problem or content and not the person. This is not personal. Keep the dialogue on the task or issue. Imagine it as something on the wall. “Let’s look at this question together.”
4. Ask for permission to ask questions or delve deeper. Getting another person’s verbal permission makes them responsible for engaging the conversation and makes them more open to listening.
5. Be sure you have thoroughly understood their position. Before you challenge or question, be sure they feel you have heard them. You might ask clarifying questions and then restate their position in order to be sure you are both on the same page.
6. Then ask if you might offer a different perspective in order to broaden the thinking and ensure that the project goes well. Using Alan’s example, you might say, “While I support your efforts at being more mindful of resources, I am wondering how this other data or experience might inform our decision?”

If the meeting still does not go well, you have another opportunity. You can go see the person after the meeting and ask them to debrief with you. In private, you might be able to explore the dynamics in a less threatening way. Tell the person that you are concerned about what occurred and ask when it would be a good time to talk. Many people are more comfortable with these kinds of conversations when they are in private and they have had time to reflect. In this conversation, you might ask them how they would like to be approached in the future when you have questions or concerns.

Remember, too, that you can only control how you are behaving. You can only make your intentions clear and offer to modify your approach if that would help. The other person has to take responsibility for how they receive you.

Godin’s distinction was helpful, but here is where I differ: Facts alone are not enough. People’s reactions to the facts influence how they respond. Their opinions will also influence their responses. You simply cannot ignore reactions or opinions.

When I am working with my clients on how to have productive conversations, I often find it important to make explicit what is fact and what is a reaction or opinion. They are both important.

Facts and data give you concrete, maybe verifiable information. People’s reactions to that data are of equal importance. When making decisions, you need both components. Let’s take a simple example:

I am meeting a friend. I am late. That’s a fact. My friend is mad. She has an opinion that my being late is disrespectful. That’s important!! In her feedback she could have said, “You’re late.” Fine and true. But if she says instead, “You’re late and I am upset about that,” then I have important information, which will influence me. If I want to stay her friend, I need to understand her thought processes and reactions. I have to make a decision about being mindful of time when I meet her in the future. I note, too, that this scenario would be different if I were meeting someone who didn’t care about timeliness.

In a work environment, this dynamic plays out all the time. If you deliver facts that people don’t like, don’t believe or don’t trust, they won’t make good decisions. Here’s an example:

A client of mine is looking at her company’s turnover rate. She gathers the facts and analyzes them. She then shares the information with the executive group. The group reviews the data and then reacts. They have opinions about the information. Some say the information is upsetting, some say it is insufficient data, and some find it reassuring. Now, the group has data and a sense of the reactions around the room (which is, in fact, more data).

What are the implications?? This group has to look at the “fact” that there is no consensus about the information. They cannot move forward with a decision until they resolve the differences of opinions. Having a deeper conversation about the group’s reactions led to a better understanding of the situation and the implications for the organization.

My partner, Tom Kornbluh, and I have developed a conversation model that we have found very useful with our clients. The model allows groups to explore both the facts and their reactions to them—but in a very conscious process. Methodically walking people through the steps help them stay on course—because mixing the two topics is very confusing and impedes progress. Using the model, discussions are more thorough and more efficient.

The PowerfulWork Conversation model is as follows:

• Set-up: explain the topic, the desired outcome and any decision-making process
• Data gathering: Provide or collect the needed data
• Individual reactions: Invite people to share their reactions
• Group implications: Discuss the implications of the data and the reactions
• Brainstorm options: What are the possible options or next steps available
• Conclusions: Select the desired conclusion or next step
• Summaries: Summarize the conversation and agreements made

Feel free to go to our website to download our free conversation templates. Give it a try!

After the meeting, my colleague asked me, “As a facilitator, can you sense when someone is clamming up and needs to be eased back in to the conversation? Is it a good thing to let people decide for themselves whether to speak up or simply observe? Finally, when one person is outnumbered by everyone else, is it a good idea to revisit the contrarian’s view and try to get more details/understanding?” All excellent questions.

A facilitator’s job is to help a group engage in meaningful dialogue. Our work is in service to the group helping it to do its work (task) while focusing on the process of how the group conducts its conversations. A mentor of mine used to refer to the role of a facilitator as that of a chauffeur. The facilitator has the destination in mind but focuses on the journey.

As facilitators our job is to make sure that the conversation is productive, that there is balanced participation, and that the process encourages healthy dialogue. It’s a quite a challenge to manage a meeting in such as way as to ensure an outcome AND be able to create a process that supports good group behaviors. To this end, a facilitator pays attention to the individuals as well as the group as a whole.

An important part of our jobs is helping to ensure that people participate, get their thoughts expressed, and are heard. This sometimes means helping to manage people who tend to dominate and inviting quieter people into the conversation. Often, I make a point of asking to hear from some people who have not shared yet or to purposely ask each member to speak to be sure everyone has had an opportunity to offer their thoughts.

Occasionally we will encounter what appears to be someone who is reluctant to speak or has been in some way shut down by the group. Our job is to invite them into the conversation but not force them. Simply asking someone how they are doing or if they want to join in is often enough to encourage their participation. On an occasion such as the one my colleague described, we might make a point of checking back in with the person who offered the differing opinion to see how they are doing. This sends the message that everyone is a valuable contributor, which in turn sends a message of safety to all.

The second part of my colleague’s question relates to differing perspectives. This is a vitally important aspect of good dialogue. When any group is vetting a topic it’s essential to encourage divergent thinking before attempting to make a decision (i.e., engaging in convergent thinking). Most groups move too quickly to solutions without sufficient understanding of the issues or problems. A contrary perspective offers the group an opportunity to explore. Failing to fully explore a topic jeopardizes the quality of the outcome.

A facilitator or any person in the meeting can note that someone has offered a contrasting thought. This is important for two reasons. First, it is important to validate the person who offered the opinion if you want to support relationships in the room. Second, the differing thought helps the group ensure a thorough vetting. Both are important to building good group functioning.

An easy solution to this dynamic is to simply notice what has happened. I often acknowledge the outlier for both the courage to speak a different truth and to be sure the group has adequately addressed the issue raised.

The group also needs to be aware of its own processes to ensure that the processes support participation. If the group ignores or devalues one person, it will likely do it again and eventually alienate a number of people. So raising the dynamic up for examination is one way of helping the group see its own behavior. The ability to observe the process is what allows a group to grow and improve.

Skilled facilitators want to build capacity within the group to self-manage, so modeling how to raise these kinds of dynamic is another important function of the facilitator. A few techniques to try include:

1. Simply acknowledge the dynamic. “I noticed that Jane offered an opinion and the group moved on to express another set of opinions.” Then wait for someone to respond.

2. Use ground rules that set standards for good dialogue—then hold the group to them

3. Loop back to the person who spoke and ask if their concern or idea has been addressed

4. Poll the whole group about how the conversation is going or where they stand on the topic at hand, then ask the group to reflect on what was said.

5. Conduct a simple evaluation at the end of the meeting and ask people what worked and what didn’t.

As always, I invite feedback and questions, as well as your suggestions and ideas!

The light is for bringing light to the truth (as best as it can be told) and helping my clients face with courage their difficult situations—helping them see the facts at hand. The warmth is the feeling of support they need to conduct their conversations in respectful, non-personal ways.

Here are a few tips to bring light and warmth to clients or colleagues:

1. Keep the conversation focused on facts. Separate out the emotions. That is not to say that people are not allowed to have emotions or express them—but those emotions are “reactions,” not concrete data. Keep the two conversations separate. Naming what is data and what is a reaction or emotion will help a group see the difference.

2. Establish ground rules. Set up agreements about how the conversation will be held to ensure respectful dialogue. Ground rules might include: using non-judgmental language, using “I” statements, focusing on problems not people, and seeking to understand. There are a host of possible ground rules to choose from. You want to craft them to suit the particular group’s dynamics. And once you have set them, uphold them!

3. Support people in speaking. If they need encouragement, invite them in. If they need help saying something, offer to help them shape their words. If they offer a thought or opinion, acknowledge their contribution. Sometimes it helps repeating back to people what you hear them say. This helps them feel heard.

4. Model appropriate behavior. Sometimes a group needs to see someone speak a hard truth but in a way that the message gets heard. Don’t be afraid to model that. A group will not do what you or the formal leaders won’t do!

5. Confront with your words and support with your tone. This is another example of how we can tell our truth, but in a way that makes it easier to hear. If we say the words clearly but with a loving tone of voice, we send a message that we care about the person, which in turn helps the other person hear us.

As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Let me know how you help your colleagues or clients bring light and warmth to difficult situations.

My last blog note was about the importance of setting goals at the beginning of a conversation was fresh in my mind. So at the risk of seeming rude, I stopped my colleague and said,” Before you go any further, can you tell m what you want from me? Do you have a specific question you want me to answer?”

She stopped dead in her tracks. I had clearly caught her off guard. She looked stunned, but she sat and though for a while. Then she said, yes, I want you tell me if I can coach the executive and his team at the same time.” She added, “Asking me what I wanted was really helpful. I can focus my ‘story’ now on what you need to know.”

I was so relieved! I did not need to take in every detail. I could look at the issues through a particular lens. I could choose the salient and relevant points to consider. Having a “goal” gave both of us a way to focus our attention. My colleague was able to describe the important facts more succinctly and I could listen for what information I needed to give an opinion.

The simple technique of asking, upfront, “what is the goal?” both streamlined the conversation and allowed us to get to the desired endpoint quicker.

This story is just an example of the many ways that we engage in dialogue without knowing why we are talking!! As the talker or the listener we have a responsibility to get clear on the expected outcome! If the presenter doesn’t offer the goal, you as the listener can ask for it.

Try it and see what happens. I’d love to hear your experiences with trying this technique out.

One related story happened to me many years ago. I was facilitating a divided and pained management team. One person on the team was an incessant talker and naysayer. No one wanted to listen to her. She would often be ranting and out of line. Her comments were often negative about people on the team and the team itself. One day, as I was watching her alienate everyone once again, I wondered why she kept taking when she knew everyone was shut down. I tried to look behind her behavior and see what was motivating her. I realized she didn’t feel heard. Hard to believe? Yes—but it was true.

After the meeting I went to the company’s CEO and advised her that, in the next meeting, she was to acknowledge this woman’s comments by paraphrasing what she said back to her. The CEO did exactly that, and it worked. The woman was momentarily stunned. She didn’t keep talking. She simply said, yes, that was my point.

Over time, by using this technique, the group was able to start listening to her. She spoke more concisely once she felt heard. In this case, the woman was trying to bring some uncomfortable situations to the team’s attention. They had been unable to “hear” her because of her approach. Once they understood that her intention was positive and once she could deliver her messages in fewer words, the team was able to take in the information and look at the situation with an eye toward resolution. The end result? A great learning for everyone.

In this example, listening to the speaker and reflecting back what she was saying helped her feel “heard”—and helped the team accept and act on her feedback. The more relaxed everyone became, the easier it was for them to communicate—and for everyone to understand that they shared good intentions.

Give this a try—and as always, let me know how it goes!

Most people have positive intentions. They are not seeking to be harmful or hurtful. In fact, in a recent poll I did on a small group, I found that 39% of the people did not confront a difficult situation because they feared it would escalate or “blow up.” Another 34% were not sure they had the right words to provide difficult feedback. People are generally fearful about entering difficult conversations, and as a result, they are often uneasy and awkward. As a receiver of feedback, you can make the conversation much easier on yourself and on the person who is trying to communicate with you if you assume good intentions.

In my many years of conducting conflict mediation and group facilitation, I have never met anyone who had a malicious intent. Some people’s behavior may have looked difficult or inappropriate, but if I probed their intentions they all wanted to improve the situation or have better working conditions.

There is a saying, “We want to be judged on our intentions, but we judge others on their behavior.” That’s a great saying to keep in mind. How do you find someone’s intention? You can ask! When someone asks to speak to you, ask “what about?” Next, ask a simple question: What is your hope today? Then start listening. Reflect back what you hear and see how the person reacts.

It’s also important to notice any emotion the other person is carrying. Are they upset, angry, nervous? The emotion can be a clue as to what is happening for the other person. You can put them at ease by saying, “I see this is upsetting for you or hard for you.” Another approach you can try is to say, “Thank you for coming in to see me. I know it took courage to have this conversation.”

You may also give yourself the right to acknowledge your own state. If you are nervous, it’s alright to say that. Putting your own feelings on the table helps the other person understand the impact they are having on you in the moment. You, too, will notice that when you say it, the feelings will start to dissipate. The more relaxed you and the other person become the easier it will be for them to communicate—and for you to understand that their intent is to be helpful. You want to be able to hear the message and discuss it in an open, exploratory way.

As always, try it. You may like it. Even if you don’t, at least you’ll learn something. And please let me know how it goes.

It’s important to remember that feedback is often a reflection of the giver. This is not to say that it has nothing to do with you; it simply means that the other person is noticing something about you that reflects what they care about. Though you are responsible for your behavior, the person’s emotional response is his or her own. A simple example:

You are late for an appointment with three friends. One friend is angry, one mildly annoyed, and one doesn’t care. Your behavior impacted each of them differently. If you want to maintain relationships with all three, you need to notice that the impact of your behavior was different for each of them and attend to any of their feedback as such. The friend who is angry needs to take responsibility for why they feel anger, but you need to take responsibility to your lateness and understand that in the future you need to be more conscious of the time when interacting with this friend — if that is a request of theirs.

This is true in a work situation as well. If you have a boss, co-worker or an employee who wants to offer some feedback to you, it’s important for you to maintain that same distinction. A person’s emotional response is his or her own choice; your responsibility is to note that emotion. Something you did triggered it. If you want to work well with this person you need to acknowledge the impact you had on them and then focus on what you can or cannot do to modify your behavior in the future.

A client of mine years ago was very upset at a retreat I had been hired to facilitate. The meeting had started late and materials were missing. I could see how mad she was and knew she had feedback for me. I continued to facilitate the meeting, which ended on a very solid note. I knew my client was still upset so I made an appointment with her following the retreat. I went in with some trepidation and asked her what she thought about the retreat. She expressed frustration and anger about the kick off. I acknowledged her anger and asked her what specifically she was upset by. She gave me a litany of errors she had perceived.

After she expressed her emotions and she seemed to calm down, I walked her through the actual events surrounding each of the grievances. I was willing to see how I had contributed. Who had the materials? Who had supervised the creation of the materials and supply list, who had been responsible for people’s attendance etc? What had I done? Quickly, she began to see that her own deputy had been the one responsible for what she had perceived as errors. She started to get upset as she realized that she often has expectations that are not met. As we talked more, she started to see her own contribution to the situation and that her failure to give clear direction or oversight often left her disappointed. I asked her then what I might have done to contribute to that dynamic in this situation and what I could do in the future. At that point, she said that I might have helped her oversee the situation better and she wanted me to coach her in how to be a more effective manager. This incident taught me a lot of lessons:

1. Not to avoid the hard conversations.
2. Allow someone to fully express his or her emotions and reflect it back.
3. Ask about and listen for concrete details.
4. Ask for the specific behaviors you may have demonstrated.
5. Be willing to hear your own contribution and acknowledge them
6. Offer to make amends or modify future behavior
7. Acknowledge the other person for being willing to talk with you

Had I left the retreat and not sought out feedback, I would never have had an opportunity to repair the relationship, help my client grow and learn, and I would have been deprived of my own learning.

When someone offers you feedback or wants to have a difficult conversation with you its an opportunity to help them sort through a situation, learn about themselves and for you to gain new insights. Most importantly you gain an opportunity to strengthen your relationship with them.

An executive in a high-profile company asked me to come in and meet with her about the possibility of my coaching her. This executive is quite successful in her own right and is perceived in her profession as a leader. In our initial meeting, she explained quite firmly that she needed me to teach her how to be a strategic thinker and how to evaluate business deals. “Why?” I asked. She said she had been called into several meetings with the president of the company and the head of business ventures to meet with the heads of other companies to discuss the possibility of partnering. She explained that she has no idea how to evaluate a business deal or how to assess whether another company should become a partner. She further explained that she is results oriented and didn’t want to waste anyone’s time. She felt it was imperative that she learn these skills in order to make substantive contribution to these meetings.

In truth, this was not a woman to be trifled with and she was quite clear she had a task for me. I assured her that we could certainly develop a plan for her to acquire those skills and that I was happy to help but at the risk of seeming to non responsive or wasting her time, I persisted in my line of questioning. What are the purpose of those meetings? Who invites her? What are their expectations of her? What do they ask her to do in the meetings? Her answers were all fairly vague and reflected her assumptions about what they wanted. I could see she was getting frustrated.

She wanted me to give her the information!! Finally, I asked her if she had ever asked them why they are inviting you. She said she hadn’t. My response was: “Before we proceed with this engagement, which could be time consuming and costly, I want you to ask either the president or the head of business development why they are including you. Speak to which ever one of them you are most comfortable asking.” We agreed to meet the following week.

I, of course, sensing this woman’s urgency did all my due diligence and came in armed with books, reference material, ready to teach. My client entered to room and sat down unusually quiet and said, “I am eye candy.” She went on to explain that she had done as I asked and inquired about her role in these meetings. She was told that she is invited because people are impressed by the opportunity to meet her. They wanted her to be herself. She was surprised, maybe a bit irked, but mostly relieved. She could go back to her real work.

The lesson here for all of us is to know why we are attending meetings and why we are inviting others. Every meeting should have a purpose and each person in attendance should know why they are there and what they are expected to contribute. If you don’t have the answers to those questions, get them and if there is not a good business imperative to be there, you should be making a decision to use your time in a better way.

I feel my own grief, I see my own children struggle to come to terms with this loss, understand what can’t be explained. I watch the parents of the boys try to comprehend the incomprehensible and deal with unimaginable pain. I watch neighbors, family members, friends, classmates, teammates and coworkers gather and reach out to one another. I see the web of pain as it extends well beyond my own comprehension to people and places I don’t know. It’s an extraordinary vision—to see and imagine the number of people affected by this tragedy. I realize that this one event and these two very special boys will have a lasting effect on all who knew them.

I think about the work I do, the organizations I go into every day, the world I live in. I think of the struggles, big and small, that I help my clients resolve, and I wonder, what are we fighting about?

The enormity of the web I see makes me want to create another web, equally expansive and powerful, to send another message. Might not this be a moment to tell someone you love them? Tell those closest to you, for sure. Hold them close and cherish your time with them. But also tell your neighbors and your friends, and then open your heart to those you don’t know or don’t like and hope that you create a web, this one a conduit of understanding, compassion and love.

This is the web these two boys began. If we hadn’t loved them—and them, us—there would be no grief.

Let’s continue the web they started. One of love.