You're in a meeting, and the discussion has gone on for a while. Eric is just now raising an issue that Inez mentioned ten minutes ago, and which everyone, including Eric, had agreed could be deferred until tomorrow's meeting. Time is short. Do you interrupt Eric to tell him that Inez has already raised that issue? Or do you sit quietly while precious minutes slide away, to be lost forever?
During meeting discussions, interrupting others is sometimes useful. But interrupting is risky; it can cause offense and thus lead to bitter, destructive conflict. Some approaches to interrupting without these risks depend on a wide array of politeness tactics. I'll address some examples of these techniques next time. But first I'll explore an alternative method for interrupting without these risks. It depends on "institutionalizing" the interrupt function so as to limit the need for individuals to interrupt each other.
For example, During meeting discussions,
interrupting others is
but it's riskyin "First Aid for Painful Meetings," Point Lookout for October 24, 2001, I suggested the usefulness of a role I called Designated Digression Detector (DDD). This person — who could be the chair, or facilitator, or anyone else — is empowered to interrupt at any time to alert the group whenever it has strayed from discussing the current agenda item. These interruptions are unlikely to give offense because the DDD is empowered to keep the discussion on topic.
As a second example, in "An Agenda for Agendas," Point Lookout for May 25, 2005, I suggested the need for a timekeeper to ensure that discussions of agenda items stay within the time bounds set in the agenda. The timekeeper is empowered to interrupt the discussion at preset times — for example, when only five minutes remain, when one minute remains, and when time is exhausted for the current agenda item. These interruptions are unlikely to give offense, because they're objective and pre-arranged. And they indirectly urge people to be concise and to-the-point when they speak, even before the timekeeper has announced any of the preset times.
Finally, a Designated Repetition Detector (DRD) can also be a useful role. The DRD is responsible for interrupting contributors who appear to be repeating the remarks of previous contributors, if they haven't exhibited something new within some predetermined approximate time after beginning their remarks. This person must have a mastery of the content of the meeting, and must pay close attention to all contributors, so as to be familiar with all previous remarks. It's a risky role that must be executed with skill and diplomacy. Humor helps, too. In some instances, if no single person has sufficient mastery of all agenda items, DRDs can be appointed on a per-agenda-item basis.
Appointing an individual to a designated interrupter role has an effect beyond mere execution of the responsibilities of that role. The appointment reduces dramatically the probability that the appointed individual will exhibit behaviors that the designated interrupter is charged with identifying. For example, if Person A habitually digresses, appointing A as a DDD is likely to cause A to reduce his or her own digression behavior. Or if Person B is known to be long-winded, appointing B as timekeeper is likely to cause B to be more concise when he or she makes contributions to discussions.
Rigorous speaker queue management is another approach to limiting the need for individual interruptions. By consistently controlling who speaks, the manager of the speaker queue (usually either the chair or facilitator) encourages people to withhold their comments until recognized. Two approaches to speaker queue management are first-in-first-out (FIFO) and polling. In FIFO, people "sign up" to speak by indicating to the queue manager their desire to speak. The usual indicator is a raised hand (either real or virtual). In polling, the speaker queue manager offers speaking time to each participant in turn, round and round, repeatedly, until a complete round results in no requests to speak. Both methods tend to attenuate the urge to interrupt.
Finally, for standing meetings — that is, repeated regular meetings — we can adopt a "process check" custom. At any time, any participant can interrupt the goings-on to invoke a "process check." The chair or facilitator is then obliged to halt the meeting to address the process check. The person who invoked it then describes what motivated the process check, which must be one (or more) of a number of predetermined process violations. For example, if the DRD has failed to interrupt a contributor who's merely repeating the remarks of others, anyone in the meeting can invoke a process check and explain that he or she feels that the DRD should have interrupted a repetitious contribution. Similarly, meeting participants can call process checks if the DDD or the timekeeper has failed to discharge his or her responsibilities. By prior agreement, the group can have a list of other conditions that are eligible for process checks. Examples:
- People are shouting at each other
- Someone has interrupted someone else
- Two people are over-talking each other
- An agenda item has been addressed out of order without approval of the meeting
- Someone is dominating the discussion, excluding others
- Someone seems to be "checked out" and isn't contributing
- An invalid process check: the invoker is objecting to something not on this list
Do you spend your days scurrying from meeting to meeting? Do you ever wonder if all these meetings are really necessary? (They aren't) Or whether there isn't some better way to get this work done? (There is) Read 101 Tips for Effective Meetings to learn how to make meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot more rare. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Effective Meetings:
- When we offer a contribution to a discussion, and everyone ignores it and moves on, we sometimes feel
that our contribution has "plopped." We feel devalued. Rarely is this interpretation correct.
What is going on?
- Speak for Influence
- Among the factors that determine the influence of contributions in meetings are the content of the contribution
and how it fits into the conversation. Most of the time, we focus too much on content and not enough on fit.
- Exasperation Generators: Opaque Metaphors
- Most people don't mind going to meetings. They don't even mind coming back from them. It's being
in meetings that can be so exasperating. What can we do about this?
- Guidelines for Curmudgeon Teams
- The curmudgeon team is a subgroup of a larger team. Their job is to strengthen the team's conclusions
and results by raising thorny issues that cause the team to reconsider the path it's about to take.
In this way they help the team avoid dead ends and disasters.
- A Pain Scale for Meetings
- Most meetings could be shorter, less frequent, and more productive than they are. Part of the problem
is that we don't realize how much we do to get in our own way. If we track the incidents of dysfunctional
activity, we can use the data to spot trends and take corrective action.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming April 1: Incompetence: Traps and Snares
- Sometimes people judge as incompetent colleagues who are unprepared to carry out their responsibilities. Some of these "incompetents" are trapped or ensnared in incompetence, unable to acquire the ability to do their jobs. Available here and by RSS on April 1.
- And on April 8: Intentionally Misreporting Status: I
- When we report the status of the work we do, we sometimes confront the temptation to embellish the good news or soften the bad news. How can we best deal with these obstacles to reporting status with integrity? Available here and by RSS on April 8.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.