You've been here: You're working on a critical issue facing the organization in a cross-functional group. Maybe it's something important like the freaking future of the company. The work of this group matters not just to the participants, but to many people who weren't on the invitation list. And then Group Member A puts forward an idea, maybe one that would require Group Member B making some sort of change. Group Member B starts shaking his head before the thought is even on the table.
If this happens once, it's no big deal. But sometimes it happens again. And again. And again. Over the course of a day, the pattern becomes ingrained. She says black. He says white. She says oil. He says water. Maybe the meeting is supposed to last an hour or a day, but it soon feels like a month-long hostage crisis. It may turn into a shouting match or devolve into a brewing cold war of nasty looks and snarky hallway comments, but you know one thing: nothing creative is going to happen between them and they run the risk of screwing up the atmosphere for everyone else as well.
We live in a country where this lousy way of interacting is not only becoming normal, but people make good money off it. And it's bad. We have serious, complicated problems that require the constructive friction that comes from listening to each other, stretching our own thinking, and taking productive action. Instead we get Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and almost any comments page on many major news outlets filled with shouters. Shouting is entertaining - in a very Jerry-Springer-toxic way - but it rarely convinces. Shouting just stirs up the people who are already on your side to similarly mindless action. It's about inciting the mob to riot.
Well, while our organizations - and our country - need plenty of revolution, rioting is rarely the way to build something beautiful. Because shouting and rioting always involve the making of winners and losers, insiders and outsiders. You don't have to be a PhD in neuroscience to know that the human brain doesn't do its best creative work with a gun to it. It strikes back. It runs. It shouts. It doesn't paint a Picasso.
Next time you're in the room and you can see the hot or cold shouting match brewing, you could try a few things: Start with yourself and the role you're playing in this made-for-Wolf-Blitzer moment. How are you contributing to the shouting? Are you one of the shouters? Are you the host purposely throwing them into the cage to fight for sport? Are you an audience member alternately thinking "Oooh!" and "Ewww!"? Are you in the crowd, but just trying to keep your head down?
- If you're one of the shouters, stop and breathe. Ask yourself a question that your crazy-talk-show-guest brain can't easily answer. Like, "What positive outcome might this other person be trying to accomplish?" or "What legitimate point might this person have?" Note: it's hard to do this if you've convinced yourself that the other person is a total creep who could never even think of doing something noble. If that's your mindset, it might be time to change the channel. Will you really get what you want by playing that tape over and over in your head?
- If you're the host of the show, take away the rewards for shouting. Move the conversation away from the shouters. Gently, but firmly, tell the shouters - privately if possible - "We have really important work to do here. Your input is important - but the way you're giving it right now, and particularly how you're interacting with Member B over there is hurting our chances of getting that work done."
- If you're one of the audience members, at the very least starve the shouters from any reinforcement. Deflect their snark-tank comments on break. Refuse to be drawn into the personal aspects of the attack. Ask a question that might shock them back into thinking like a grown up, noble human. Something like, "You and I both want to get somewhere on this issue. What do you think the group needs right now if we're going to get a good outcome?" Draw their mind from attack to service of the common good.
- If you're tempted to just keep your head down, ask yourself whether that's really the best option. How does this scene play out if people like you sit on their hands? Are there others like you in the room? Could you band together and try to influence the conversation to a more productive place? Sure, intervention implies risk and may not be worth it if the powers that be desperately want a chair-heaving shouting match. But is it worth it to stay silent?
If we all rejected shouting as a change strategy - to leave the room when it's happening, or even better to turn down the volume on the rancor and turn up the volume on the underlying legitimate issues - we'd get more done. And we all know that there is more than enough to do.