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.

Recently I was working with two colleagues, Joe and Daniel. They had been friendly and had worked well together for close to two years, but their relationship had suddenly turned sour and was affecting the entire office. Their boss called me to ask if I might help.

I embarked on a fairly typical process to help the two parties work this out, starting with individual conversations.

Daniel claimed that all was fine and there was no need to get in a room and talk.

Joe said that Daniel was temperamental and had frequent outbursts, but that he had come to live with it. Joe also said that he wanted to talk about Daniel’s performance—and went on to cite numerous incidents of work not being done as instructed. Joe readily admitted, however, his tendency to have high standards and to get upset when things were not done exactly the way he wanted them done.

I was not at all sure how the mediation would go, as Daniel was so reluctant to get in a room with Joe. The meeting started slowly with them both tentatively acknowledging the value of working this out and articulating each other’s strengths. As they got closer to talking about “the problem” they started arguing in great detail about each step of their standard operating procedure (SOP).

In the midst of the debate, Joe said, “I told Daniel to own his work.” This was an accusation that Daniel was somehow responsible for the errors because he was not talking responsibility.

I asked Daniel if he recalled Joe telling him “to own” his work. Daniel said, “Yes.” I then asked Daniel what owning his work meant to him. His response was to do his work the way he thought it should be done even if it varied from the SOP.

Next I asked Joe what “owning” his own work meant. Joe replied, “Doing the work the way I said it should be done.”

Ah, a small word—“own”—but a huge difference in interpretations!!

In that moment they saw their problem. Though they both heard the same word, they had sent and received very different messages. Neither actually cared about the SOPs, but they both cared about getting the work done efficiently and effectively. They were colliding, if you will, over who got to decide how the work got done on a number of occasions. Joe thought he had permission to do things his way, and Daniel thought Joe was to do it precisely the way Daniel wanted it done.

Now you might think that the decision on who makes the call about process was the issue, but it was not. They easily cleared that up. The ultimate problem was that Daniel often gave vague instructions when telling Joe how he wanted it done. The words we use count. This was their biggest learning—that when they discuss work togther they have to be sure they are communicating well. They agreed to simply restate their understandings when they finished planning so that they both could agree to what was decided.

This is not an unusual problem. It happens in two-way conversations and it happens in meetings. People assume they all have the same information because they all heard the same words. Not always true! Here are a few tips:

1. At the end of every conversation or decision, someone in the room should be asked to restate the conclusion. This allows everyone to hear the message once again. If there are just two of you, you both should say what you heard. Be careful to be as specific as possible.

2. Use a flip chart and make a point of writing the decisions, agreements and next steps. A visual will help people notice if they have misunderstood.

3. At the conclusion of a meeting when there have been several conversations, always review the major points, decisions and next steps.

4. When summarizing or giving directions, paint a picture. Describe exactly what it would look like if it were done as agreed. Be as concrete and specific as possible.

We all share that fear, and it often drives us to over-facilitate or too feel overly responsible. In meetings, we are busy making ourselves look useful or helpful, or showing that we know something. But those behaviors are about us and not about the group’s needs. Our job as facilitators is to serve our clients’ needs.

If this dynamic sounds familiar to you, try the following exercise:

1. Define competence. What is competent?? List what you man by that. Don’t just list a few, try to list them all. Keep writing until you start to feel it’s silly. If you dig deep enough you find you have some funny beliefs driving you, and those need to be examined.
2. What’s driving you? When you look at the list, what sticks out? What is motivating your actions?? The need to be the expert? Fear of making a mistake? Of getting fired??
Examine your own motivation. Then move to step 3.
3. Decide what is in the best interest of the group. Ask yourself, how does my doing these things help the group build its own self-responsibility or capacity to resolve its own issues? What are a good facilitator’s goals? How am I supporting the group’s goals? Align your behavior with the outcomes you want for the group.
4. Make it manageable. Is it possible to achieve all those standards?? If you had to throw three quarters of the list out, what would you save?

As always, I’d love to hear your reactions or any tips you have for facilitators to help them and their groups be more successful.

Really??

You have probably heard the refrain: It’s not what you said, it’s how you said it. Many a manager I have met has told me, “My job is not to have people like me, it’s to get the work done.” That is often their excuse for not saying things in a way that can be heard.

Just think about that: saying things in a way that can be heard. It’s not about being LIKED; it is about getting the work done effectively and efficiently. To get the work done, however, you have to communicate in ways that people can hear you. You have to not just listen to words, but take in the information and use it. Your job as manager or co-worker is to communicate in a variety of methods and in ways that people are willing to listen to you. You may not be liked but you should have earned respect and have the ability to motivate your people.

In my experience some people are aware of how they are impacting people, others are not. If you are aware, then you are halfway there. You need only to try new techniques. For those of you who know something is wrong but don’t know what it is, here are a few tips:

1 Get feedback. Ask trusted colleagues or employees for some feedback. Ask them to be very specific. What does it look like when you are impacting people negatively or positively? Without specifics you can’t change the behavior.

2. Check how you are feeling. Often behaviors are a result of an emotion or feeling. Begin to practice just noticing what’s happening in your body. Do you feel tense? Frustrated? Angry?? At ease? How is that feeling showing up in your communication style? People hear words but the message is often in the tone.

3. Check your priorities. Be ruthlessly honest with yourself. Do you value expediency over relationships? Doing it right versus teaching someone? Make a list of what you think your values are at work and then another list for home. Do they match? Are they different? Sometimes we keep the heartfelt values at home and bring task-related values to work. See what needs to be blended or applied in both places. Getting your values clear in all parts of your life will help you feel more of yourself everywhere you go.

4. Be purposeful about how you want people to feel. When you are communicating take a minute and think about the message you want to send—in terms of the language you use, the points you want to make, and how you want people to feel. If you want them to feel motivated, enthusiastic, and included, be sure to build your message in a way that transmits the right feeling.

If nothing else, remember the words of Maya Angelou: “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” And it’s how people feel that will drive their behavior.

As per the study mentioned earlier, many employees attribute most of the conflict they experience to personality clashes and egos. This attribution is echoed in my experience as an organizational development consultant, mediator, and coach. Unlike a study, my work has allowed me to delve deep into situational conflicts and explore the dynamics at work. What I’ve learned is that most conflict is not caused by personality differences, but as a result of:

1. Misaligned or misunderstood goals (working at cross purposes)
2. Unclear roles
3. Unclear processes or procedures

In my 34 years of working in and with organizations, never have I seen personalities as the root problem. Someone’s behavior may be troublesome, and people often ascribe behavior to a personality problem—but this may or may not be true.

Moving from observing behavior to analyzing someone’s personality is dangerous, inappropriate and beyond most of our skill sets. Furthermore, we have almost no control over someone’s personality, so the endeavor to label it as problematic puts us in a no-win situation.

Rather than look at personalities, we need to look at the situation. As a mediator and consultant, I start to dig deeper when people say that the problem is “the other person’s personality.” I ask them to go back to observable behaviors: “What is happening in concrete, specific terms?”

I often ask people to laboriously detail events and processes. 99% of the time, people discover that it is not the other person’s personality that’s the problem but rather a misunderstanding, confusion, or a difference of opinion about goals, expectations, roles, or processes. These are easier to remedy (though not always) and much less likely to be emotionally loaded.

It behooves us, as managers, to not only resolve conflict but to prevent it. Each of us—whether we are leaders, managers or co-workers—can help. Here’s how:

1. Increase time spent on start-up processes. When a new project begins or a new hire is on boarded, spend the upfront time to be clear about the job, including goals, expectations, roles, authority level, decision making, reporting lines, communication requirements, and troubleshooting processes. Be meticulous about the start-up process. It’s a big investment of time, often resisted by busy managers, but it’s well worth it if it increases trust and productivity, speeds the learning curve and prevents problems later. And it will!
2. Deal with problems quickly. As soon as a problem surfaces, long before it becomes a conflict, deal with it. It should be managed quickly. The earlier you intervene the easier it will be to straighten out.
3. Keep your eye on the facts. Do not start analyzing or attributing motivation. Assume good intentions if anything. Delve into the situation, asking questions to discover people’s understanding of the goals, of their roles and the role of others, and review work processes. Get details and keep it objective. Focus on the problems and dynamics, not the people.
4. Get people together. Listening to one side or the other sets up triangulation. Bring the parties together and help THEM talk this out. Guide them, help them communicate well. With all parties in the room you have more details and more perspectives, and people are held responsibility for what they are saying. Co-workers need to learn how to talk through issues together. (You can use Step 3 as your guide for topics.)
5. Take ownership. We all have a part in any situation in which we are involved. Look for your contribution and be willing to do something about it. If you are a manger don’t back off from saying what you want or stating that a decision is yours to make. Sometimes employees are clashing because you have not been clear or decisive. Step up and ask others to do the same.

There are some guidelines to help you decide whether a meeting is necessary or not—but they don’t completely answer the question. That’s because meetings serve two purposes: to do collective work and to create community.

We often forget the community part, which is unfortunate. Everyone I know wants to have a sense of belonging at work, and meetings are often where that happens. Yet we try to keep them short, as demonstrated by the “stand-up meetings” that are currently in vogue. Or we issue tons of e-mails to replace meetings altogether.

These and other such devises have merits and, in fact, may reduce unnecessary meeting time. But they fail to provide employees with a sense of belonging and of collegiality.

Instead of focusing on cutting the length of meetings, start looking for ways to build community in them. Make them friendlier, more positive. Create opportunities for small group discussions, and give airtime for people to talk to each other. The stronger the bonds are between workers, and between the workers and the organization, the higher the morale and loyalty.

Next time you set up a meeting try a few techniques and see what happens. The results may be evident in the meeting immediately or they might take some time, but you will see a difference. Some ideas:

1. Have everyone say something at the beginning of the meeting. It might be personal or it might be something they hope to get from the meeting or it could be an accomplishment they are proud of. Just get everyone talking!!

2. Bring food. Allow some informal time at the beginning or the middle of the meeting. Let people chat informally.

3. For some part of your agenda ask people to get into pairs or trios and talk about the issue at hand. Let them report out their collective thoughts. Sometimes sharing on behalf of a small group is easier than sharing your own individual ideas. The smallness of the group will also allow some personal interaction.

4. At the end of the meeting ask each person to share learning, a take-away, or an appreciation. Again, get people involved and talking. Keep it as positive as possible.

5. Bring things for the table like simple toys. It’s a technique that is very useful. It brings some fun into the room and it reduces stress. Many of my clients who at first thought it odd to have toys told me later that it helped them pay attention better and it made the meeting more enjoyable. (And I have lost a few toys along the way, because many of my clients apparently wanted to keep them!)

6. Get away from a conference table. Use small tables or chairs. Use a different room, one that may be a lot friendlier or even cozy. Creating an inviting environment will help as well.

A client of mine—let’s call her Sally—gave me a great example.

A woman in Sally’s organization named Deborah, who is higher in rank, was regularly going to Sally’s boss and complaining about her. Sally was frustrated with this behavior and was worried about how it might endanger her reputation. Sally had tried a number of approaches to head off those conversations about her, including asking Deborah to come to her directly if she had any concerns. Sally had also gone to her boss and requested that her boss ask Deborah to go directly to Sally. Nothing was working. Sally felt powerless. How could she stop those conversations?

Sally was trying to solve the problem by dealing with it from a damage-control perspective. What if there was another way to look at it?

I asked Sally what her biggest fear was; she said that her reputation with her boss would be damaged. So, I asked, “What do you really want?” Her response was quick. “I want my boss to think I am doing a good job.”

I then asked Sally, “How does your boss evaluate your work, and where does she get her information?” Sally replied, “It’s based on my work performance and I am not sure where she gets her information.” Then she said, “I have been so focused on stopping these interchanges between my boss and Deborah, that I never thought about how I could give my boss positive information.”

With a new perspective Sally decided to take a completely different tack. She decided not to deal directly with Deborah’s behavior but instead to build her own credibility with her boss in other ways. She set out a plan to bring good news to her boss. Sally now uses her weekly meetings with her boss to deliver a summary of her division’s accomplishments and her own progress on important matters. Sally also sends her boss any acknowledgements of good work she or her division receives. So Sally’s boss now has a regular flow of information that shows how well Sally and her division are performing, and Sally feels confident that her boss has a fairly well balanced flow of information about her.

Sally demonstrated the power of shifting her perspective. The next time you feel that you are stuck in a repetitive pattern that is not getting you the results you want, try these suggestions:

1. Ask yourself what it is you REALLY want. Dig a bit to uncover the positive outcome you are seeking. If you want someone else’s behavior to change, then ask what that change would get you. The answer to that question is closer to what you ultimately want.

2. Stop focusing on the negative and look for the positive. We tend to focus on where we are having problems and that often leaves us feeling demoralized. Shift your perspective to what is working. Seeing the positive or even looking for the positive will help bring a new perspective.

3. Try on other views of the problem. Name the perspective you are in and then ask yourself what another perspective might be. If that doesn’t come easily to you, ask yourself how another person—someone you respect—might look at it. Think of something in nature, and ask yourself what it would think of this? Try on as many other viewpoints as you can and see which one feels best to you. From there, look for a new approach.

4. Break the problem down into smaller chunks. Sometimes we have a problem that is very complicated or has many elements. Don’t try to solve them all. Identify the various components and try to isolate one issue that is more manageable. Begin there.

As we worked on plans to move forward, group members raised a number of issues about negative interactions with the more junior staff. One member of the team asked, “When did that happen?” The response indicated that the incident had occurred quite a while ago.

The group quickly recognized that it was entertaining old issues, so the team adopted a ground rule that, for the remaining meeting time, they would identify the timing of any incident they mentioned.

The question of “when did that happen” had incredible power. Locating the events in time allowed the executive team to see that it was trying to lead into the future, but that it was stuck in the past. That’s like trying to drive your car looking backwards!

This realization gave them the ability to sort out the current issues from the old ones. Then they were able to let go of the problems or issues that were no longer relevant. Removing the old and irrelevant issues freed the group to shift their attention and energy to what was ahead.

The next time you are in a meeting or facilitating a discussion in which people keep bringing up old stories, you might want to offer these questions:

1. When did it happen?
2. Who was involved?
3. Has it been resolved?
4. Can you let it go?
5. If not, what needs to be done?

Helping people to step back and examine their stories gives them the power to choose to let something go—or to do something to resolve the issue. Letting go of the past will free them up to shift their attention to what is actually happening and what they want to create. And that’s a much more powerful place to be!

Post script: This client was very successful in shifting their attention to designing some great processes to move forward.

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!