Here's the setup: States: Alice: Focussed on driving forward (camera on) Bob: Clever, position unclear, Understands the real issue trying to be solved (camera off) Others: (Camera off, position unclear) Alice: I see two options - option A and option B, both with pros and cons. I think we need to move with option A because .... do you agree? Bob: I think "horses are strong" (irrelevant) Alice: Sorry, I see your comment as unrelated. Can we focus on the options? What are your thoughts on this? Bob: Are you saying, "sky isn't blue" (true statement but unrelated and unarguable) ALice: I agree to your point but let's get back to the issue at hand Bob: I'm glad you now see the point. Others: (eating pop corn?) Others (Mr. x): I really agree with Bob. I think there's merit in that point. Alice: (Now frustrated) Folks! I don't disagree on bob's point.. but.. (conversation goes for a while..) Others (Ms. y): I think its important to recognize Bob's point. Others (Mr. z): We need to recognize that "roses are red" (another unarguable, remotely relevant but useless to the conversation) Bob: That's a great point, Mr. z. Let's not forget this as we make key decisions. (Alice by this time is sapped of energy and recognizes the game being played). <meeting ends> Alice's boss: I can't disagree with Bob and others. What are your thoughts? Alice: (jaded by this time) - what ever you say boss. Disclaimer: I'm not saying, camera being on or off is not a litmus test for 'engagement'. However, more often than not, there's high degree of correlation. I find myself in Alice's position and seeing this repeat this so often I am no longer naive to say that Bob and others are deliberately playing this - either because they just jumped into the meeting from another meeting and want to quickly engage by saying something uncontroversial but not adding value or to just not declare their position and misdirect the conversation to avoid taking a position. Just wondering if you see such behavior and have advice for Alices of the world. #crucialconversations
Can Alice play the same game? “Bob had a great point supporting option, let’s go with A”. An irrelevant point can be supported to either option
oh shit. I'm bob
Sound like Alice was not WFH and was commuting to the office. if she WFH the team had better outcomes.
Alice came to the meeting with 2 preconceived options without asking any of the other stakeholders to help define those options. If she involved those individuals from the beginning she'd have alignment and buyin and not disengagement. Alice thinks leadership is pushing forward with her own ideas to check a box instead of taking the time to identify the best idea with all perspectives included. Alice forgets that everyone has a camera but not everyone has a good idea.
Sounds like Alice should evaluate why so many engaged with bobs comments but Alice was the only one being dismissive of them. Alice’s job as meeting driver is to reach a conclusion not THE conclusion that Alice believes to be true
TLDR: stopping a Karen, Alice