Questions, Doubts, and Disagreements

Often in a meeting, when someone questions an idea, the question is interpreted as a personal challenge of the person whose idea it is. This is especially true when you’re dealing with (E)- and (A) style managers.

Here is how I handle it. In a meeting, when we finally reach an illumination, a working idea, I say, “All right. I want everyone to take a piece of paper and divide it into three by drawing two horizontal lines across it. Label the upper part ‘questions;’ the middle part ‘doubts’; and the lower part ‘disagreements.’”

Let me define each.

“Questions” means you’re asking for more information. “What is this?” “What is that?” “What happened to this?” “What happened to that?” “How will this work?” “How will that work?” You aren’t expressing an opinion and don’t necessarily have one; you’re simply asking for more details.

“Doubts” means you have all the information you need but you’re in doubt about whether it’s going to work. Here you list your concerns.

“Disagreements” means you’re not in any doubt; it’s not going to work, and here’s why.

Next, I spell out the proposed solution in detail, while everybody writes down their questions, doubts and disagreements in the appropriate sections of the page.

Then we accumulate only the questions – not the doubts and not the disagreements – and try to answer the questions. Nobody feels threatened or gets upset, because we’ve already established that a question is not a disagreement. We take the questions one by one and we try to answer them together until they are all resolved.

By separating the questions from the doubts and disagreements, I make sure that everyone understands, “Oh, it’s just a question; nobody’s decided. I can relax.” And as we deal with the questions – and the questions are often very legitimate – we change and adapt the proposed solution, so that it is constantly evolving, growing, changing, right in front of our eyes.

When all the questions have been answered, we again accumulate questions, doubts and disagreements (I call it the QDD list). What will happen is that the doubts from the previous list will move up to become questions in the new list, and the disagreements will move up to become doubts. And we start the process again. Again we deal only with the questions, until they are all answered.

Next we do another QDD list, and now the original disagreements have moved up to become questions. We repeat the process until, finally, when I ask, “OK, any new questions?” there are none. “Any doubts?” There will be none because they have all been dealt with. “Any disagreements?” None as well.

Sometimes we hit a question that the group cannot resolve by using this process. For that, I use a methodology called dialectical convergence, which involves looking for the assumptions behind the disagreements. We’re dealing with the why, and we go deeper and deeper and deeper, looking into the whys, until we find out the source of the disagreement. Then we attack the source of the disagreement. (Unfortunately, due to space limitations – how much can one book contain? – the dialectic convergence methodology will have to be spelled out in a separate book.)

What happens if the dialectical convergence method does not resolve the problem? On the rare occasions that we reach an impasse, I postpone the discussion until the next meeting. Usually, what happens after people sleep on it is they come back much more relaxed and much more willing to change. Time is a good healer. What people cannot agree about today, they’ve already gotten used to by the time we meet next week or next month.

Backup behavior

When people are tired or upset, they often revert to their default styles of communicating, ignoring the needs of those to whom they’re speaking. That’s why it’s extremely important to be relaxed and well rested before important meetings. And even under the best of circumstances, there are times when a meeting should be stopped altogether and rescheduled.

How will you recognize those situations? Let’s use your car as an example. You’re very familiar with the normal humming sound your engine makes, so if someone asks what that noise is, you can say, “Oh, nothing. That’s normal.”

Once you know what a normal noise is, you can identify noises that aren’t normal and might indicate a problem. If you hear such noises, what should you do? Normally, you should stop driving as soon as possible and get the car checked out.

The same is true in personal relationships. Sometimes a conflict is normal and nothing to worry about. It’s even music to your ears, because you know you are both learning. It’s pain with gain! But when you hear abnormal noise, it’s time to intervene and stop the discussion.

If a meeting is not stopped at the point when people are getting emotional and angry, the danger is that the machine will keep sputtering until major and sometimes irreparable damage is done. What is breaking down is not the transmission or the muffler, but mutual trust and respect.

Each of the (PAEI) styles exhibits a typical abnormal “noise,” which I call “backup behavior.” It appears whenever people aren’t listening to or learning from each other anymore. It usually starts when people feel intimidated and fear they are losing control.

When (P)s feel they are losing control, they become little dictators. They proclaim, “OK, I’ve heard enough! Here is what we’re going to do, and I don’t want to hear any more about it. Period!”

When an (A) feels under attack, he freezes. His jaws lock, his face becomes frozen, he’s totally quiet. He just looks at you, or not even at you but through you. What he is thinking is not fit for print, but he doesn’t say a word. However, he remembers everything. Ten years later, that (A) will say, “Do you remember what you said, Friday, the 22nd of April, at three o’clock in the afternoon?” He’ll never forget. He’ll keep a detailed diary in his mind and sometimes even on paper.

An (I) yields like a tree in the wind. He flexes himself until the wind passes and then he straightens himself up again. How does this manifest itself? He will claim, “Oh, I didn’t mean that,“ or “That wasn’t what I meant to say,” or “That’s not exactly it,” or “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean it.” See what’s happening? He’s wiggling.

An (E) is the most dangerous when threatened. He will go for your throat. He will cut you to pieces, suck your blood and spit it out, he will call you obscene names and publicly demean you. What’s interesting is that the next morning he will act as if nothing happened.

He’s forgotten about it. It’s all over, done, finished, that’s it. He doesn’t understand why you’re still upset.

This sort of conflict occurs in many marriages. (E)s often marry (A)s because they complement each other. Traditionally, although not necessarily, the (E) is the male and the (A) is the female. In an argument, he attacks her, and she withstands it silently while mentally cataloguing it. Years later, when she wants a divorce, he falls to pieces because he doesn’t know what went wrong. She starts reminding him what happened on that infamous afternoon ten years ago, and he is shocked because he has very little memory of the fight. He hardly remembers what he had for breakfast, much less what happened ten years ago. But an (A) never forgets and never forgives.

When backup behavior occurs in a meeting, whoever is still more or less in control of his emotions needs to stop the discussion immediately. You can say something like, “Let’s discuss it tomorrow. I hear you, and I want to give you the full attention you deserve, but we are too emotional right now.” Refuse to continue the discussion.

Be prepared for the (P)s and (E)s in the room to object and insist that the problem be resolved immediately. They hate pain and want to get it over with. When they hear abnormal noise, they don’t slow the machine down; they speed it up. Don’t get sucked in.

It’s also not a good idea to resume the meeting too soon. After all, what did you do with the car that sounded as if it were breaking down? You stopped it. Did you immediately start it up again? Of course not. You checked the source of the breakdown first. The same holds true for personal conflict when there is backup behavior. When the meeting has been adjourned and everyone has cooled down, try to find out what caused the backup behavior in the first place. Clear up that issue before continuing the discussion. Ask the others, “What happened yesterday? You seemed upset. What did someone say or what happened that upset you?” Only when that issue is resolved should you reactivate the machine. Then you can go back to discussing the issue you were dealing with.

Summing it Up

Meetings can be frustrating and unproductive because of the different styles and interests of those present. It is not enough, even for a strong manager, to simply “run” a meeting according to his or her own style and expect good decisions or good follow-through. Inevitably, someone will be misunderstood, and resentment, resistance or confusion will result. What’s missing is a set of rules. Every participative endeavor must have agreed-upon rules of conduct; without them you get either anarchy or dictatorship.

Well-functioning groups can develop their own rules for effective participation. But it’s best to have a group leader who can bring order and efficiency to meetings. Even more important, by promoting a spirit of mutual trust and respect, he can help the management team make effective decisions together.

What are the characteristics of a team leader, and how can we find or train him? The next chapter addresses these issues.