Many times people encounter situations wherein a meeting even if prepared well, but participants kind of blindsided the speaker. He has clean objectives, although someone just disagrees to one of the presumptions nearly middle way of the meeting and rest simply adds to the disagreements. The speaker tries hard to explain the logic behind but no one it seems tries to understand and ultimately the speaker feels no one came to defend him. Rather, the rest of the people join in and the speaker feels as if he is that bottom guy in Rugby pile-on. It looks like complete disarray and hostile situations creeping in, and the meeting is at its closure having no clear propositions.
Much significantly, executives have tried to decrease this circumstance by formulating meetings like “rubber stamp” scenarios, where all the business has been settled beforehand and there is no chance to have an open discussion. Well, this is a big mistake.
Subjugating opposing views creates a person little adaptable and convert the meeting an uninterested scenario. Rather than that one needs to open up and be prepared to administer any sort of differences in point of views, differing of ranks, or in spite of absolute rebellion. The difference in opinion occurs when more than one person provides a disparate style to see a situation. Discord occurs when there is disagreement towards a position or a proposition. Moreover, a rebellion occurs when a predominant coalition, in other words, an epic force defies or challenge someone’s right to be the team leader. As long as these triplets are thoroughly different, they would be connected (for example, an opposing view in minutes can downward spiral into rebellion) also a person might feel harassed no matter what has happing to this person.
According to Richard E. Boyatzis, co-founder of the Coaching Research Lab and co-author of Helping People Change, a piece of excellent advice he has got on how to respond these scenarios was from a KG teacher (and my wife). She indicates that when in a classroom child get agitated in the class, and rest get caught in their uncontrolled state of emotions, the thing which one should do is to distract them. If someone asks them to calm down that will not help here. Asking them to reassess will not work here. Many of us have encountered a similar experience, going downward spiral of emotional contagion at an airport when announcements being made of 3 hours of flight delays, or might be an event of sport where a fight starts in the middle of the field as well as spectators also joins in. Although, in those kinds of violent situations, I believe the KG strategy works well rather than trying to manipulate them to assess their actions at that very moment. Distracting them help it best in these situations.
In case someone is feeling besieged, it is important to go back to the basics, converse about the vision or objective of the company or organization one is leading. The studies of psychology depict that mutual vision plays a crucial role in making the leadership effective, citizenship as well as engagement – although its appeal to sensory networks as well as hormonal mechanisms which help human being be open to novice ideas as well as varies opinions of others.