As defined last time, a stone-thrower in a meeting is someone who tries to halt forward progress, either for private or political reasons. Stone-throwers use tactics that differ from the tactics of dissenters, who merely disagree with the agenda of the meeting or the general direction of the group. Dissenters express their disagreement forthrightly. They try to persuade the group to take a different path. But when they fail, they go along with the group, or they might exit the group either immediately or in the near term. Dissenters don't obstruct. They don't try to prevent the group from making any kind of forward progress.
Some chairs are incompetent, and their incompetence sometimes induces others to obstruct — to become stone-throwers. Set that case aside for another time. For now, consider only the case of the reasonable, competent chair trying to lead the meeting or the team in a direction that someone — the stone-thrower — objects to.
Stone-throwers obstruct. They're determined not to let the group move forward at all.
So if the chair uses the "Two-Part Sealed Response" described last time, and the stone-thrower persists, additional action is necessary if the chair and presumably the rest of the group want to return to making progress toward the objective. Below is a collection of tactics and strategies for dealing with stone-throwers who persist. In what follows, I'll use the names Stacy or Stan for the stone-thrower, and Charlie or Cheryl for the chair.
- Recognize that the stone-thrower's behavior is a performance issue
- Dissenting from Stone-throwers obstruct. They're
determined not to let the
group move forward at all.the chair's view of the group's objectives is not a performance issue. Dissent is valuable; the right to dissent must be protected. (See "Appreciate Differences," Point Lookout for March 14, 2001.) But obstruction is a performance issue. Stone throwing is a tactic of obstruction.
- Unless Stan is a direct subordinate of Cheryl's, Cheryl must deal with this performance issue through Stan's supervisor. Contact with the supervisor might be direct or indirect or a combination of both, depending on formal and personal relationships. See "Performance Issues for Non-Supervisors," Point Lookout for July 12, 2017, for more about handling performance issues.
- For the chair: enlist the assistance of other attendees
- If the chair anticipates that a stone-thrower might take action at the next meeting, preparation might help. The chair can ask other attendees to intercede if the chair's interventions prove ineffective during the meeting. Candidate allies of greatest value are those who formally or informally outrank the stone-thrower. Especially effective can be brief comments by these allies directly to Stacy, along the lines of, "Stacy, we've heard what you've been saying, and we need to move on right now, so let's the two of us discuss this afterwards, OK?"
- Even attendees of lower rank can be help, but they probably should address the chair rather than the stone-thrower. Example: "Charlie, we already approved the agenda, and Stan's objections would take us back to re-hashing the agenda, so can we please continue with the agenda item we were discussing?"
- Monitor lobbying activity
- Some stone-throwers engage in "lobbying" activity — contact with meeting attendees outside the meeting context. They do so if they believe they can consolidate a faction that can aid them in obstructing progress. This activity can be most effective when it occurs outside the awareness of the chair.
- Cheryl would be wise to alert allies to the possibility that Stan might seek their support outside the meeting context. She can ask her allies to listen to Stan's arguments and pass them along to her in advance of the meeting, to enable her to craft responses and take coordinated, preventive action.
- For other attendees: support the chair if support fits for you
- Other attendees of lesser formal or informal rank can also play important roles in limiting the effectiveness of the stone-thrower. If it fits, they can support the chair when he or she asks openly for support, as in a vote, or a request for consensus. In discussions of any issues the stone-thrower raises, support can be reasoned and reasonable counterpoints to the stone-thrower's points. Or support can be agreement with closing off of discussions the stone-thrower initiates, or suggestions to close them off.
- Opposition to Stacy's views can be politically risky. Attendees who intend to support Charlie in opposing Stacy should be certain that they've managed those risks before accepting them.
- Be alert to covert stone throwing
- Covert stone throwing can occur in a variety of forms. An experienced political actor pretending not to throw stones might persuade less-experienced or naïve individuals to throw stones without their realizing they're throwing stones. Or someone who seems reasonable, and who has never acted to obstruct progress, might seek a key position leading a sub-team so as to be well positioned to act obstructively. And much more.
- When forward progress stalls, even when stone throwing isn't obviously happening, covert stone throwing is a possibility. Chairs would be wise to carefully vet anyone who steps forward to assume leadership responsibilities. And when someone does obstruct, it's best to assume innocent motives until evidence of intentional stone throwing is clear.
Progress in solving difficult problems can be slow or intermittent. Stone throwing is only one of many possible explanations. But when it does happen, set the primary objective aside temporarily. Ending the stone throwing becomes the new primary objective. First in this series Top Next Issue
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:
- Discussus Interruptus
- You're chairing a meeting, and to your dismay, things get out of hand. People interrupt each other so
often that nobody can complete a thought, and some people dominate the meeting. What can you do?
- Questioning Questions
- In meetings and other workplace discussions, questioning is a common form of conversational contribution.
Questions can be expensive, disruptive, and counterproductive. For most exchanges, there is a better way.
- Virtual Meetings: Indicators of Inattention
- If you've ever led a virtual meeting, you're probably familiar with the feeling that some attendees
are doing something else. Here are some indicators of inattention.
- Costs of the Catch-Me-Up Anti-Pattern: II
- When we interrupt a meeting to recap the action so far for a late-arriving attendee, the cost of the
recap itself is just the beginning. There are some less-obvious costs that can be even greater.
- Effects of Shared Information Bias: I
- Shared information bias is the tendency for group discussions to emphasize what everyone already knows.
It's widely believed to lead to bad decisions. But it can do much more damage than that.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming June 26: Appearance Antipatterns: I
- Appearances can be deceiving. Just as we can misinterpret the actions and motivations of others, others can misinterpret our own actions and motivations. But we can take steps to limit these effects. Available here and by RSS on June 26.
- And on July 3: Appearance Antipatterns: II
- When we make decisions based on appearance we risk making errors. We create hostile work environments, disappoint our customers, and create inefficient processes. Maintaining congruence between the appearance and the substance of things can help. Available here and by RSS on July 3.
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, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
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.