3 WAYS PARTICIPANTS DISRUPT
Two disclaimers up front.
First, there are LOTS of ways participants disrupt facilitated group processes. It would take a book just to list them all. These are just three I see all the time.
Second, not all disruptions are bad. Disruptions can be productive if they reexamine assumptions, introduce radical ideas, and maintain an inclusive environment.
What I’m talking about here are disruptive behaviors that are COUNTER-productive to group processes. A counter-productive disruption shuts down healthy dialogue, prematurely eliminates ideas before they’ve been given a thorough examination, or attacks people whether they’re in the room or not.
Disruption 1: “Well that’s not smart. What would the marketing team know about finance, anyway?”
What’s going on: Criticizing the person making the argument rather than the argument itself is an ad hominem attack.
Two ways to resolve it:
-
Go back to the ground rules. If a ground rule touching on respect is not on the list, add “Attack the problem, not the person.”
-
Invite support for the group being attacked. “That’s one perspective. Does anyone agree with what we’ve heard from the marketing team?”
Disruption 2: “We’re in danger of being made irrelevant. We need a burning platform to motivate change!”
What’s going on: Playing on others’ anxieties instead of arguing merits is an appeal to fear. The phrase “burning platform” came into existence when, in the late 80’s, an oil platform in the North Sea burst into flame leaving the crew with the choice of jumping into the freezing water 15 stories below or burning to death. As far as models for ensuring long-lasting change, the burning platform is just about the worst there is.
Two ways to resolve it:
-
Advocate for the positive. “Who has some ideas about how people’s lives will improve if you do this?” Positive psychology has a far better track record for managing lasting change than does appealing to fear.
-
Return to the line of inquiry. “It will be important to weigh the emotional impact of the change at some point. For now, let’s continue to explore pros and cons for this particular idea from an analytical perspective. Does anyone have reasons why you should or should not do this?”
Disruption 3: “We have a communications problem.”
What’s going on: Without understanding organizational and interpersonal dynamics, participants may sense they have a problem but not have the wherewithal to diagnose or describe it accurately. They’ll explain by naming: attaching one label to explain many of the negative conditions they experience. Worse, they’ll convince themselves that if they can just fix that one problem, everything will be fine. The truth is that most organizational problems are wickedly complex and are impervious to single silver bullet solutions.
Two ways to resolve it:
-
Root cause analysis. Dig deeper and don’t be fooled that the presenting issue is the actual problem. “I can see how you would call this a communications problem. What’s behind that? What behaviors are you observing that would lead you to call it a communications problem?”
-
Mindmap it. Write the named issue in the center of a large sheet of paper. “Let’s examine the attributes of the issue in more detail. How do communications problems show up?” Capture your participants ideas without filter or judgment. From the quickly-growing complexity of the visual, it will soon become clear that the real challenges are much more complex than just the named label.
For more on disruptive behaviors, check out the section on Logical Fallacies in the book Red Teaming by Bryce Hoffman, where he lists and describes twenty disruptive behaviors. Used with the author’s permission.