There are people who must have their own way and when that is challenged they try to rope others into endless dialogue designed to wear people down until they give in. They use phrases like, "I am not being understood, can we talk?" or "I am confused by your position," and "I must not be making myself clear." If it is a group decision and their position is not being agreed with they may try to triangulate with others on the team to get their way.
Those who rope others into endless dialogue have a strategy. They have learned that they can wear others down by debate and eventually many will simply give in or give up. Often they have strong personalities and the dialogue becomes a method of intimidation until people basically surrender.
I once observed a dialogue between two senior leaders. One of them was trying to convince the other to make a certain decision that he did not want to make. The aggressor kept coming back with different angles, never acknowledging that the other party kept saying no. It became so problematic that I finally asked them to take a time out so I could suggest to the aggressor that he needed to back off and leave it alone. He was simply unwilling to take no for an answer and his MO was to keep pushing until someone gave in. This behavior is nothing other than bullying and intimidation under the guise of dialogue.
Healthy people don't keep pushing others when they have clearly indicated their preferences. Humble individuals do not try to force others to agree with their position. Don't allow aggressive and pushy individuals to rope you into endless dialogue. They know exactly what they are doing and it is not about "understanding each other." Rather it is simply about getting their way.
Showing posts with label dialogue. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dialogue. Show all posts
Friday, June 6, 2014
Saturday, March 9, 2013
How leaders often shut down discussion, stifle dialogue and create stagnant cultures
Have you ever been in a staff meeting at some time in your career where you knew it was unsafe to say what you really felt? Or, where everyone knew that nothing would be said that would be considered contrary to what the leader thought? Where many positive things would be said about the ministry but no one would name the many elephants?
Whenever I see a culture like this I know that there is a leader who has shut down discussion and stifled dialogue enough times that people will not say what really think, and everyone but the leader seems to know that.
How do leaders shut down discussion, stifle dialogue and create stagnant cultures? One of the easiest ways is simply to make dismissive statements when suggestions are made: "that won't work," "I don't like it," "We don't do that kind of thing here, "We've never done that." Sometimes it is just body language that says something like "You have to be kidding."
Whether the idea or suggestion is a good one or not these kinds of statements from leaders send a strong message that one is better off just keeping their mouth shut. Not only are such statements pathetic in their lack of EQ but they are designed to end conversation that the leader does not want to have.
Often, leaders who display such behaviors are really saying that if the idea is not theirs it is not going to fly. In other words they are simply not willing to consider anything that does not fit their paradigms which staff quickly pick up on and choose to simply stay quiet.
Those who continue to speak up and press into things that the senior leader does not want to hear or do quickly find that they are marginalized and sometimes even forced to move on. That sends a very powerful message the conformance and silence are the keys to survival.
Another way that leaders can do this is simply to ignore proposals that are made. In one such case I am aware of, the leader will tell subordinates that he will "think about it" or "study the proposal" and never bring it up again. It dies by deliberate neglect.
All of this creates a culture of stagnation because ideas, suggestions and different paradigms are not welcome at the leadership table. Staff must operate within a narrow band of what is acceptable and cannot be themselves in using their best thinking and creativity. It is a deeply frustrating place to be for anyone who is even a moderately healthy individual.
It also creates a culture of elephants - issues that everyone know are there but which cannot be safely addressed or even identified. What makes this so absurd and crazy is that the issues are not secret but they have to be treated as secrets, or as non-issues. As the number of issues grow that cannot be discussed, so does the dysfunction in the organization. When things do erupt out of frustration, the eruption is often unhealthy because healthy dialogue was shut down long ago.
Unfortunately there are many examples of leaders who shut down discussion, stifle dialogue and create stagnant cultures. It is a sign of personal leadership dishealth, insecurity, dysfunction and it hurts the staff, organization and even the ability of the leader to lead well. I have vowed that I will never again work for such a leader.
Whenever I see a culture like this I know that there is a leader who has shut down discussion and stifled dialogue enough times that people will not say what really think, and everyone but the leader seems to know that.
How do leaders shut down discussion, stifle dialogue and create stagnant cultures? One of the easiest ways is simply to make dismissive statements when suggestions are made: "that won't work," "I don't like it," "We don't do that kind of thing here, "We've never done that." Sometimes it is just body language that says something like "You have to be kidding."
Whether the idea or suggestion is a good one or not these kinds of statements from leaders send a strong message that one is better off just keeping their mouth shut. Not only are such statements pathetic in their lack of EQ but they are designed to end conversation that the leader does not want to have.
Often, leaders who display such behaviors are really saying that if the idea is not theirs it is not going to fly. In other words they are simply not willing to consider anything that does not fit their paradigms which staff quickly pick up on and choose to simply stay quiet.
Those who continue to speak up and press into things that the senior leader does not want to hear or do quickly find that they are marginalized and sometimes even forced to move on. That sends a very powerful message the conformance and silence are the keys to survival.
Another way that leaders can do this is simply to ignore proposals that are made. In one such case I am aware of, the leader will tell subordinates that he will "think about it" or "study the proposal" and never bring it up again. It dies by deliberate neglect.
All of this creates a culture of stagnation because ideas, suggestions and different paradigms are not welcome at the leadership table. Staff must operate within a narrow band of what is acceptable and cannot be themselves in using their best thinking and creativity. It is a deeply frustrating place to be for anyone who is even a moderately healthy individual.
It also creates a culture of elephants - issues that everyone know are there but which cannot be safely addressed or even identified. What makes this so absurd and crazy is that the issues are not secret but they have to be treated as secrets, or as non-issues. As the number of issues grow that cannot be discussed, so does the dysfunction in the organization. When things do erupt out of frustration, the eruption is often unhealthy because healthy dialogue was shut down long ago.
Unfortunately there are many examples of leaders who shut down discussion, stifle dialogue and create stagnant cultures. It is a sign of personal leadership dishealth, insecurity, dysfunction and it hurts the staff, organization and even the ability of the leader to lead well. I have vowed that I will never again work for such a leader.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Dialogue is the key to understanding
As an author and writer, written words are the tools of my trade - but not in all cases. Organizational leadership can be helped with clear written words. But true understanding of the implications of what is written usually only comes through dialogue - frequent dialogue.
People learn differently. For many, their primary learning method is not reading but hearing. But the most powerful way to learn is that of dialogue together because it is in the give and take of perceptions, ideas, levels of understanding that the best understanding takes place. In addition, one can see the others face, expressions and hear their intonation. Face to face is always better and face to face with mutual dialogue is the best.
Many leaders forget this. They think that because a memo was sent or an all employee email popped in everyone's inbox that people "got it." In fact, they may have "gotten" something very different than what was meant, even by good communicators. In fact they got the memo. They may not have heard what we said. Or understood the implications.
Interestingly, leaders also learn through dialogue. They learn how best to communicate what they are trying to convey. They learn when what they are saying is not clear which changes how they communicate it the next time. And, they are challenged to an even sharper version of what they are sharing. They may even realize there are weak spots in their plans!
There is no substitute for leaders finding time to interact with their staff. People want to understand, not simply hear. Discussion and dialogue is the key. If you lead, how often do you dialogue?
People learn differently. For many, their primary learning method is not reading but hearing. But the most powerful way to learn is that of dialogue together because it is in the give and take of perceptions, ideas, levels of understanding that the best understanding takes place. In addition, one can see the others face, expressions and hear their intonation. Face to face is always better and face to face with mutual dialogue is the best.
Many leaders forget this. They think that because a memo was sent or an all employee email popped in everyone's inbox that people "got it." In fact, they may have "gotten" something very different than what was meant, even by good communicators. In fact they got the memo. They may not have heard what we said. Or understood the implications.
Interestingly, leaders also learn through dialogue. They learn how best to communicate what they are trying to convey. They learn when what they are saying is not clear which changes how they communicate it the next time. And, they are challenged to an even sharper version of what they are sharing. They may even realize there are weak spots in their plans!
There is no substitute for leaders finding time to interact with their staff. People want to understand, not simply hear. Discussion and dialogue is the key. If you lead, how often do you dialogue?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)