Driving home late tonight from what might be called a spirited meeting, I reflected on how difficult it can be to maintain decorum in group meetings when the subjects are emotionally charged. If you add high stakes to group discussions, the result is often volatile. And the volatility is significantly higher than if the group discussed the same topics in pairs.
We’ve all noticed this dynamic, right? Get a group of really bright, hard-working professionals in a room, open up the dialogue to a topic that has a deep impact on everyone present, and watch what happens. Every comment is perceived more critically and each gesture becomes more threatening than intended. The discussion spirals into a dysfunctional expression of frustration and contested notions.
A brave soul often tries to play peacemaker. That seldom works because the opposing camps see the peacemaker as an interloper, uninvited to the role of diplomat. They’re in no mood to reconcile if their irritation is still high. The study of human “fight-or-flight” behavior has demonstrated that once the sympathetic nervous system is triggered, it takes time for the body to recapture the flood of hormones and neurotransmitters ejected into the endocrine system, which ramp up that defensive behavior. You can’t reason with someone who has shifted to the unreasoning, reactive side of their autonomic nervous system.
Further exacerbating the negative dynamic: If someone has expressed a strong emotion in a group, they are often feeling at risk and exposed, especially if they do not have firm alliances in that group or if the others have not shown support for their viewpoint. The angry person in a group can feel isolated, which also increases the strength and duration of their “fight-or-flight” behavior.
To understand what is going on, we need to remember that human behavior has developed over a quarter million years for our species, and for millions of years before that for our phylogenetic ancestors. Humans, and most hominids, survived predators and resource scarcity through collaboration and mutual support. Without the group effort, individuals didn’t have much chance of a long life. To be excluded from the troop, clan, tribe or village was tantamount to a death sentence. Therefore, being attacked by another animal in the group invites one of two responses from others.
One response could be others coming to the aid of the animal. Another response could be joining in the pummeling. Weaker animals were more likely to receive the latter treatment, so demonstration of strength was (and is) critical to preventing the equivalent of a hen-pecking party.
Are you familiar with that phrase? I must remind myself that not everyone had a farmer for a grandfather, nor is everyone old enough to remember these quaint colloquialisms. A hen-pecking party occurs when a chicken gets injured and bleeds. The other chickens tend to pick at the injured one until it dies.
One theory as to why this happens is that the simple animal brain thinks to itself, “Well, Frank is getting pecked. I don’t want to get pecked. I can take a chance that others will begin pecking me or I can do the pecking. I think I’ll do the pecking.”
Another reason why group disagreements can become more inflamed than the subject would seem to warrant has to do with public embarrassment. Different cultures establish varying conditions that give rise to embarrassment. What would embarrass a Shanghai resident is different than what would embarrass a New Yorker. (Some say that New Yorkers are incapable of embarrassment. I know better.)
Embarrassment is essentially a fight-or-flight response to the expectation of being ostracized by the troop, clan or tribe. We get red-faced, our heart rate increases, our blood pressure rises, our ability to reason and speak coherently declines and we sweat.
Knowing these animalistic responses are common in group settings can help diffuse the emotionality. One technique is to call for a break to temporarily dissolve the group and have a one-on-one conversation with the protagonist. By addressing the issues personally, privately and respectfully, the point of the discord can be better understood at least, and possibly resolved without the heat of group attention to prevent it.
Another technique is distraction: Bring up a parallel subject or related topic that is not on point to the contested notion, but not completely off-base either. The diversion will reduce the ability of the combative parties to continue combat.
For example, if the point of argument is whether to invest a million dollars in a risky product development project, the diversion might be someone asking a detailed question about the underlying market research, which requires everyone to pore over the facts, rather than debate the conclusions that are based on those facts.
Finally, a simple solution that is available to the person who called the meeting or who has the most authority in the room is to simply say, “We’re not being productive. We’re all very interested in this topic, but it seems clear we’re not in the right frame of mind to continue today. I’ll send an invitation to a follow-up meeting soon.”
If a group meeting is not productive, respectful, constructive and enlivening, then forcing more interaction won’t bring progress and may damage long-term relationships.
Sewitch is an entrepreneur and business psychologist. He serves as the vice president of global organization development for WD-40 Company. Sewitch can be reached at sewitch1@cox.net
Press ESC | Close [X]
