The cast of characters typically remains the same. It is usually the same team members who watch the action in meetings and rarely, if ever, contribute to the discussion. They prefer to stay in the background and under the radar. In most teams, their silence is accepted and viewed as a reflection of personality, not engagement. Whatever the underlying reason for their reticence, these team members are spectators and not full participants in team discussions. They like it that way. No harm, no foul, or so their thinking goes.
I believe this is why knowing your people is important. People are known by their work (or atleast should be). A former manager and leader challenged me to always be asking "how can I bring value?" I believe it is imperative to assess men and women this way. What I have learned is this requires systems thinking (Senge. 1990). In addition to patience, diligence, and integrity.
We are trying to get some of our Leader Development folks to participate more in group discussions. They say they are engaged (I believe this to be true) but they're more thinking/processing vs. talking/exploring. We're going to start adding more structure to our get togethers - small group breakout discussions, or partner up before meeting with another to present insights/raise questions. Hoping this will encourage them. I 100% agree that silence is a killer - we want as much input and dialog as we can get.
Would be interested to know if their participation increases if the structure was changed in such a way that a detailed agenda came to them ahead of time? Do you think you thinking/processing people would br ready to talk if they had a memo or detailed agenda to read thru ahead of time?
Small group breakouts would likely have the same effect as detailed memos being sent ahead, as both structures essentially provide time for processing before talking.
In my experience, if input and general feedback on "Team Work" is frowned upon.. or lack of....it's boiled down almost always to one two things. Number one.... miscommunication of expectations and or objective of tasks. And B... intentional kept in the dark for reasons that are most times underhanded in nature...
In my experience, if input and general feedback on "Team Work" is frowned upon...it's boiled down almost always to one two things. Number one.... miscommunication of expectations and or objective of tasks. And B... intentional kept in the dark for reasons that are most times underhanded in nature...
How do you discern between someone who remains a spectator yet has something useful to offer and someone who doesn't belong in the meeting?
Probably by the quality of their response when asked a direct question.
The person who does have something useful to offer will have that show up, in some way, in the nature or substance of their answer.
Good morning Josh,
I believe this is why knowing your people is important. People are known by their work (or atleast should be). A former manager and leader challenged me to always be asking "how can I bring value?" I believe it is imperative to assess men and women this way. What I have learned is this requires systems thinking (Senge. 1990). In addition to patience, diligence, and integrity.
Thank you for your time.
We are trying to get some of our Leader Development folks to participate more in group discussions. They say they are engaged (I believe this to be true) but they're more thinking/processing vs. talking/exploring. We're going to start adding more structure to our get togethers - small group breakout discussions, or partner up before meeting with another to present insights/raise questions. Hoping this will encourage them. I 100% agree that silence is a killer - we want as much input and dialog as we can get.
Would be interested to know if their participation increases if the structure was changed in such a way that a detailed agenda came to them ahead of time? Do you think you thinking/processing people would br ready to talk if they had a memo or detailed agenda to read thru ahead of time?
Small group breakouts would likely have the same effect as detailed memos being sent ahead, as both structures essentially provide time for processing before talking.
In my experience, if input and general feedback on "Team Work" is frowned upon.. or lack of....it's boiled down almost always to one two things. Number one.... miscommunication of expectations and or objective of tasks. And B... intentional kept in the dark for reasons that are most times underhanded in nature...
In my experience, if input and general feedback on "Team Work" is frowned upon...it's boiled down almost always to one two things. Number one.... miscommunication of expectations and or objective of tasks. And B... intentional kept in the dark for reasons that are most times underhanded in nature...