Dealing with Disruptive Behavior in Meetings

I pulled this from the text that we used during my "Team Dynamics" class.  It contains a few tips about handling people problems in meetings.

Dealing with Disruptive Behavior in Meetings
A carefully planned meeting can fail if members’ behavior disrupts the group process. Group members should address such behavior rather than assuming that the chairperson can or will resolve the problem. In How to Make Meetings Work, Michael Doyle and David Straus write that “dealing with these problem people is like walking a tightrope. You must maintain a delicate balance between protecting the group from the dominance of individual members while protecting individuals from being attacked by the group.” Here, we examine a few common types of disruptive behavior.

Non-participants
You don’t need full participation from all members all the time; the goal is a balanced group discussion over the course of a meeting. However, you should be concerned about the non-participant, who never or rarely contributes. Take some time to analyze why such members may be reluctant or unable to participate. Are they anxious, unprepared, or uninterested?

Do not force apprehensive or introverted members to contribute before they are ready to do so. At the same time, though, provide opportunities for reluctant members to become involved in the discussion. When non-participants do contribute, respond positively to their input to demonstrate that you see the value in their ideas.

Loudmouths
A member who talks more than others is not necessarily a problem. However, when a person talks so much that no one else gets a chance to speak, the group has a loudmouth problem and must respond appropriately. At first, allow loudmouths to state their ideas, and acknowledge that you understand their positions. It may be necessary to interrupt them to do so. Then shift your focus to other members or other issues by asking for alternative viewpoints. If a loudmouth continues to dominate, remind this person of the importance of getting input from everyone. The next time the group meets, you may want to assign the loudmouth the task of taking minutes as a way of shifting focus from talking to listening and writing.


Interrupters
Sometimes group members are so preoccupied with their own thoughts and goals that they interrupt others when they have something to say. Although most interrupters are not trying to be rude, their impatience and excitement cause them to speak out while other members are still talking. When a group member continually interrupts others, it is time to interrupt the interrupter. Invite the previous speaker to finish making her or his point. A more aggressive option is to prohibit interruptions—to intervene and say, “Let Mary finish her point first, and then we’ll hear other viewpoints.”


Whisperers
A whisperer carries on confidential conversations with another group member during a meeting. The interference caused by whispering or snickering makes it hard for other members to listen and concentrate. Directing eye contact toward such sideline conversations can make the offenders more aware of their disruptive behavior. If the behavior persists, ask the talkers to share their ideas with the group. This usually stops the behavior or may uncover issues that deserve discussion.


Latecomers and Early Leavers
Latecomers and early leavers disrupt meetings and annoy group members who have managed their time well enough to arrive on schedule and stay through the entire meeting. If you are the chairperson, start the meeting at the scheduled time. Do not waste meeting time by summarizing meeting business for the benefit of latecomers. Let them sit without participating until they have observed enough to contribute to the discussion. Rather than publicly reprimanding or embarrassing latecomers or early leavers, talk to them after the meeting about the importance of attending the entire meeting.

When you have to confront member disruptions, be sensitive and focus on the behavior rather than making personal attacks. Describe the behavior, suggest alternative behaviors, and indicate the consequences if the behavior continues. Don’t overreact; your intervention can be more disruptive than the problem member’s behavior. It is best to begin with the least confrontational approach and then work toward more direct methods as necessary.

Taken from Working in Groups, by Engleburg and Wynn.

Listening and Trust

I listen to people "not listening" on a daily basis, and it frustrates the heck out of me.  That said, I do it too  occasionally.   Judging from my experiences and from my personal development, I think that teaching people listening skills should be a major component in business setting, especially as managers and leaders.  However I also think that organizational trust is the underpinning of our success in leadership positions. 

  

We cannot be present for every single event or problem that may occur on the "front lines."  This means that our employees must have the confidence to speak with us about problems and concerns in the workplace.  Trust opens the communications channels, and helps to make us aware of conditions in the field.  Once the communication channels are open, people will speak and we will listen.  Once they speak and we listen, it makes it easier to unite concerns with proposed solutions.

 I mentioned concerns earlier, but the word "concern" is not to be taken as a negative thing, or a bonafide issue needing rapid resolution - although sometimes that is the case.  Concern in this context means problems that need to be addressed, and other ideas that may benefit the organization.  It's for both reactive (fixing problems[lagging]) and proactive (innovating [leading]) solutions.

Speaking + listening = dialogue. 

Conflict + dialogue = Traction

"Traction pulls you out of the mud." [lagging]

"Traction also helps you accelerate." [leading]

I like metaphors. :-)

Jarrod

Building Your Leadership Pipeline

Times have changed and so has the competitive landscape of business management. Traditional business models told business owners and executives that to become more competitive, you had to invent something new to sell or service, or improve an existing product or service. That was all there was to it. In general terms, the inputs and outputs haven't changed much, but companies are continuously changing their internal processes to improve company performance. How so and what does this mean to the business world?

Repeat after me, "I will make a concerted effort to obtain top talent."

For smaller businesses, this presents a problem. Often, smaller businesses don't have the capital to hire superstars, and in some areas, the superstars just aren't there. Case in point: Metropolitan New Orleans, post-Katrina. So what is a business to do when they can't always find "the best"?

There is a solution to the depleted leadership pool. "If you can't find them, then make them." Remember. Leaders are created, not born. The process began with parents, teachers, and coaches. With any luck, some leadership skills were transferred during college and military stints. Often though, a person's leadership development stagnates when he or she takes a job. It's a shame. Many potential leaders have been ruined by a lack of mentoring, coaching, bonding, and training.

However, you don't have to let this happen. By taking a proactive approach to your business leadership, you can keep your pipeline filled with home-grown leadership candidates. Instead of searching outwards for the "perfect" candidate, you can develop the characteristics and skills of the people you have now. Leadership is an ongoing process and keeping the flow going, you can continue to improve.

Look for That Spark

By spark, I mean the natural ability to communicate with people. Add to that, look for the ability to connect - meaning the ability to communicate and relate to people and build on this. The ability to connect is absolutely necessary because as a leader, one must have the ability to win others over. Communication, connecting, and relating are skills required to persuade…without a hammer or whip.

Train a cross section of promotable candidates on a regular basis

Create Development Plans

Create development plans for the individuals with that spark. Teach them to leverage the talents that they already have and help them figure out their leadership performance gaps. Encourage them to leverage their current talents and persuade them to develop in other areas where their skills are inadequate for a leadership role.

Don't: Use cookie cutter development plans for all candidates. I know it's easy to point, click, and email, but it cheapens the process…it makes it seem less sincere and more obligatory.

Do: Create specific plans for the individual. It makes the candidates feel special…like you've got an interest and a stake in their professional well being. After all…you do!

Coach and Mentor…Continuously, Without Annoying

Coaching and mentoring are crucial.

The process starts with a relationship between you and the candidate then continues with regular bonding and nurturing. It sounds kind of "touchy-feely," I know, but the relationship, bonding, and nurturing sessions are critical to the molding process of the candidate. You must coach candidates with the intent of creating a business partner. Get their opinion on current company challenges (be careful of the can of worms you open here.)

It's a great conversation starter and a chance to help mold their thinking about certain business topics. Discuss together how you intend to combat them. Let them in on some info that's not confidential, but not readily available to the troops. A great technique is to allow them to observe management meetings (With the exception of certain confidential meetings.) You are beginning to let them into your circle of leadership. Watch them blossom as they begin to feel like they are part of "The Club."

Don't: Coach for the sake of coaching…meaning, don't coach if you don't have anything to coach on. It's both annoying and ineffective.

Do: Encourage dialogue by asking questions and telling stories. Tell stories that relate to a topic that you would like to discuss, though you should at least attempt to keep it the context of business.

Classroom Training

I recommend that you create or outsource leadership and management training for the existing leaders and for the candidates. It's a great refresher for existing leaders and a great learning tool for prospective leaders. It's important that you continue to train and develop your leaders and your workforce. Remember that training is a process, not an event. You should concentrate on basic leadership skills as well as management but remember to place the emphasis on leading people.

Don't: Do a mass training event every few years with large time gaps between sessions.

Do: Establish an ongoing training program. Choose attendees for the monthly/quarterly sessions based on their specific needs, as documented in their development plans. Breaking the training up into monthly or quarterly sessions helps spread the costs out over time as well.

These recommendations seem difficult en masse, but if you break them into phases or projects, it'll be much easier to handle. If you do the things mentioned above, you'll have a much better chance of creating a team of superstar leaders. These superstars will align team actions with company goals and ultimately pave the way for your company's success.

Working in Groups

Working in groups has several advantages, several of which are discussed by Engleberg & Wynn (2010). I'd like to discuss what I see as advantages first - some of the things that I see as advantages overlap with the text. My experience tells me that groups are advantageous because they are more productive, more creative, and motivating as well. Of course, each of these advantages is only realized if the team is well led (facilitated.)

They are more productive for obvious reasons. Four people can do more work than one person.

Teams are more creative because a well-led team fosters an environment that allows raw and unfiltered input into the process. This is when ideas bubble to the surface and are captured.

There are motivating aspects of teams as well. For many of us, working as a team affords us the opportunity to interact with people. According to Reeve (2009), interacting with people contributes to relatedness, which is an intrinsic motivator. Working as teams helps to build relationships.

For the last few weeks, I have facilitated the performance of a Root Cause Evaluation on a regulatory issue at work. The team consisted of five people including me. We created a nearly flawless document that analyzed a serious issue. Though I am qualified to do these types of analyses, I know little about the issues that we analyzed. That's where the team members came in. I just listened, and guided them through brainstorming and data gathering, and then eventually a causal analysis. I learned much from the process as well.

Because of the way that we facilitated the process, and the way that we managed the team, the data and creativity flowed. These guys/girls were digging up information that I had no clue about - literally. They seemed to be energized by the work.

I also got to hang out and work with some great people, new people, and people who needed to learn from the process. We all became closer as the weeks ended.


References:
Engleberg, I.N., & Wynn, D.R. (2010). Working in groups: Communication principles and strategies.
Reeve, J. M. (2009). Understanding motivation and emotion (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Overcoming groupthink

I think that if managed and led effectively, groups can be more effective. Of course as you mentioned earlier, there are a couple of pitfalls. Groupthink is potentially VERY DESTRUCTIVE. Industries and government organizations are wrought with examples of where groups fell victim to groupthink, with catastrophic consequences. Groupthink was one of the contributing factors to the Space Shuttle disaster of 1986. There are others in recent history…the list is long.


Here are a few ways to overcome groupthink:

Teach group leaders to avoid seeming partial to one course of action.

Foster a group culture where it’s permissible to advocate their position.

If the group is large enough, create subgroups to work on the same problem.

Have group members discuss the issues with outsiders and report back to the group.

Invite outside experts to observe and evaluate group processes.

Assign someone to be the “devil’s advocate” at each meeting.

Hold “last chance” meetings including outside, critical guests to look at the final product.

These are just a few that I’ve used in the recent past. They seem to work most of the time…or maybe I just got lucky. I have been exposed to groups where one or more of the members were in my opinion, “megalomaniacs” with leadership titles... it was truly exhausting. Watch out for this!

This is just my two cents.

Is your company going through a high employee turnover period?

Is your company going through a high employee turnover period?  Of the employees that have left recently, what have they told you of the reasons for quitting/leaving?  Often times they leave and don't tell you the true reasons, particularly because of fear.  They don't want to burn any bridges.  Do you guys do a separation survey on the individuals that quit?

I've lived through such an ordeal. Money is part of the issue, but not all of the issue. In my humble opinion, the main issue and cause is poor leadership - that's because even though we concentrate on "getting it right," we still need to concentrate on "doing the right things(Covey)."

The following list is from Leigh Branham(2005). The 10 most frequently mentioned issues that employees say companies do poorly are:

• Poor management—uncaring and unprofessional managers; overworking staff; no respect, not listening, putting people in wrong jobs; speed over quality; poor manager selection processes.
• Lack of career growth and advancement opportunities—no perceivable career paths; not posting job openings or filling from within; favoritism or unfair promotions.
• Poor communications—problems communicating top-down and between departments; after mergers; between facilities.
• Pay—paid under-market or less than contributions warrant; pay inequities; slow raises; favoritism for bonuses/raises; ineffective appraisals.
• Lack of recognition—that says it all.
• Poor senior leadership—not listening, asking, or investing in employees; unresponsiveness and isolation; mixed messages.
• Lack of training—nonexistent or superficial training; nothing for new hires, managers, or to move up.
• Excessive workload—doing more with less; sacrificing quality and customer service for numbers.
• Lack of tools and resources—insufficient, malfunctioning, outdated, equipment/supplies; overwork without relief.
• Lack of teamwork—poor coworker cooperation/commitment; lack of interdepartmental coordination.

In addition to the above survey, Branhan also found that 89% of managers believe that high turnover is due to money, yet according to the same survey delivered to the employees, 88% left for reasons other than money.

Lopsided isn't it?

If you fix the stuff in the list above, you are on your way to minimizing employee turnover, which will save your organization a “dumptruck” load of money. 

If you need help with this, I can support you.  Shoot me an email at jclavel669@gmail.com.

References:

Leigh Branhan(2005) , The 7 hidden reasons employees leave: how to recognize the subtle signs and act before it's too late.

Emotional Intelligence and "The Ladder of Inference"

I read about(and saw on PBS) how human beings are actually "Feeling machines that think" rather than "thinking machines that feel." This means that we cannot forget our emotions - it's impossible. We can be aware of them, and minimize their effects, but it's tough to ignore them - particularly when we encounter key moments.


I think that ALL companies - at least to some extent, should try to institutionalize Emotional Intelligence. I say "to some extent" because some people, just won't embrace it, no matter how much we coach it. One of the things that organizations struggle with is faulty assumptions. This normal behavior comes from invidual belief systems that cause distorted though processes. Peter Senge in the Fifth Discipline teaches a concept called "The Ladder of Inference" to try to diffuse this. The "Ladder of Inference" comes from a gentleman named Chris Argyris. It goes like this:

1.Data is observed
2.I chose the data points from what I observe
3.I add meanings based on my own belief systems
4.I make assumptions based on the meanings that I created
5.I draw conclusions based on the assumptions
6.I adopt or change my beliefs about the organization(and the world)
7.I act based on my beliefs
8.I apply these new beliefs in rung #3 above, when the situation/cycle starts over.

It's important that we look at all of the data.

It's important that we base decisions on facts, not our personal SPIN(in most situations)

Break the cycle and teach others to break the cycle!

Jarrod

A little bit on Organizational Psychology

Organizational Psychology Defined


A company or organization behaves similar to the human body. Like doctors, company decision-makers need diagnostic information about their organization or entity within their organization. Diagnostic information is necessary prior to making decisions on how to run a company or organization. The following work discusses the meaning of organizational psychology along with its uses. This post paper also explores various applications and attempts to describe the utility of organizational psychology as a science.

What is Organizational Psychology?

Organizational Psychology is defined as a scientific study of individual and group behavior in formal organizational settings. Formal organizations are not only companies but also can be nonprofit organizations, military units, and even clubs and fraternal organizations. This science is part of a larger group called Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Industrial Psychology focuses on the classic Human Resources (HR) functions of the organization, such as performance appraisals, pay and compensation, hiring and firing, and training.

Organizational Psychology focuses on things like motivation, socialization, organizational development, leadership, and team dynamics. Each of these issues can help or impair a manager’s ability to run a company or an organization. Motivation is important, because organizational success relies on the individual workers doing their job well. Socializations and team dynamics are important because working in groups is often times more effective. Leadership is important because it is the foundation of any good company. Leadership is the soul of an organization.

Research and Statistics

Research is necessary because leadership teams cannot make good decisions about how to run a company or organization without accurate information. Making a decision without acquiring as much information as possible is tantamount to a Medical Doctor writing a prescription without asking any questions or running any tests. It is virtually equal to a car mechanic replacing parts, without diagnosing the actual problem.

As discussed above, leadership teams need information to make decisions. The quality of the information that the team receives, hinges upon the quality of the data collection methods, the accuracy of the analysis, and the quality of the report. Statistics make the research accurate because, typically statistical research is more structured and controlled, and therefore more valuable to a decision maker. Statistical research can also test specific correlations between organizational changes and employee sentiment and attitudes. Performing surveys at some periodicity is good for determining the health of the organization as well as the health trend of the organization. Sometimes, the trend in response rates can actually help determine a degrading culture. A lowering response rate from year to year, would be indicative of a loss of confidence in the ability of leadership to resolve problems that have been identified for years, but haven’t been addressed.

Organizational Psychology – What’s it for?

Simply put, Organizational Psychology can be used to help organizations perform better in two major ways. The first way is by researching and reporting on existing problems within the organization. The second is by solving the problems that were found during the research or other means. Some examples of problems to be solved are things like, safety culture, problems with working hours, lack of organizational focus, and overall employee morale. These problems can be addressed and solved by, leadership development, changes in compensation, team building, and restructuring of workflow. Jex and Britt (2008) discuss the process of “organizational development” in chapter 15 of the text. This process is what a practitioner can use to help an organization enact sweeping changes. The organizational development process gathers data from research, and works with the company to develop new structures, goals, and core processes.

Conclusion

Organization Psychology is a science that is used to study and improve organizations. Practitioners can help companies improve through the organizational development process. By performing organizational assessments, a company can determine where they are with respect to where they want to go. By performing leadership training and by developing employees, a company can improve their results, making them more competitive, increasing profits, and even improve employee morale and retention.



Jarrod Clavelle


References
Jex, S. M., & Britt, T. W. (2008). Organizational psychology: a scientist-practitioner approach (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Business research methods (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill/Irwin.

You can't change what happens to you - but you can change how you respond to it.

I like talking about the topic of emotional intelligence.  It goes beyond the simple treatment of people.  To me, emotional intelligence is a important skill that managers (really all people) need in order to be truly successful.  It starts with being aware of our own emotional and behavioral shortcomings.  I was taught to conquer my "Key moments."  Meaning that when something occured, evoking a response from me, I had a choice regarding how to act. 

As managers and people, our decisions to act are based upon more than what's right and wrong, they are based on our own perceptions about life.  I'm sure that you all have heard of the term paradigms.  Normally, in a business context  the term concerns the beliefs of an organization as a whole.  But in an emotional intelligence context, paradigms are about how the individual views the world and as a result makes a decision.  It's about our individual constellations of core beliefs, and how they drive us to act. 

Not all of us have the same belief systems, and it's important that we realize that.   That is one spot where emotional intelligence is extremely important.  As managers we must listen, process and think, then speak or act.  We must be cautious about what we assume, and prevent letting our emotions and beliefs distort reality and "make things up" that don't exist.

Going slow, listening, thinking, and reversing roles are the keys to conquering those key moments.

90% of our life moments are driven by how we respond to events.  The events only set things into motion – our reactions change the world around us.

Most of these thoughts come to me from Steven Covey, and from Roger Allen, who taught me a course on emotional intelligence.  Good stuff!

Losing Trust?

Organizational trust is paramount in any organization.  By trust, I mean the confidence in your ability to relate and communicate with the people that you work with.  If a company CEO is a jackass who creates fear and inspires production by threats and intimidation, eventually it’ll come back to haunt him/her.  This tactic dissolves the team and completely unravels the fabric of a good company.  Fear and intimidation lead to co-dependency – meaning that, people eventually lose their ability to operate autonomously.  This means that they will always make decisions based on what will cause them the least amount of pain, rather than what is best for the company or organization.  I was a part of an organization like this.  I can’t say that it resulted from CEO behavior, but I can say that the Senior Leader in the picture behaved in this way.  At meetings, he crushed dissent and belittled people for many reasons – most of which were unwarranted.  People witnessed this daily and eventually, stopped speaking out at meetings.  A few months later, people began to resign.  After he moved on, the organization had a difficult time functioning because people were accustomed to the autocratic regime that he created.

Just some thoughts.  If any of our readers have experienced the same sorts of things, please chime in.  If you can't resolve it and would like to know how to work through it, please shoot me an email at jclavel669@gmail.com.

Good luck and best regards.

Jarrod Clavelle