Disablers at work. A practical guide.
We often talk about enablers. Tools, topics, technologies but also people which or who provide capabilities to do something better. As the word well says: they enable us. We create multi-million dollar projects to realise them and pet our backs and hive-five us when they are successfully implemented. For a good reason.
On the other hand, there are also disablers. Tools, topics, technologies and people which or who block us to do things better or excel in what we do.
Disablers can be bureaucratic processes, deprecated technology or unsolicited Windows updates. Just half – kidding.
Whereas those disablers are technical and objective, usually affect all people in an organisation in the same way, disablers in the form of people are different.
Those disablers block you from succeeding in your projects, they drain energy and – in the worst case – make you lose motivation for your job.
Disabling people can be very subjective. It might be only you facing the problem. They are a multifaceted result of interpersonal relationships, cultures and personal motives.
Different to enablers or technical disablers you therefore can’t just simply come up with a project and get rid of all people sucking your energy. Although this sometimes sounds intriguing and the only option to be happy again, there are other options to deal with those kind of people.
In this article I want to highlight on three different types of Disabling-People, why they can be a problem for you and how to effectively deal with them.
Too difficult, too complex, too whatever. The Problems-Only Type
Imagine you present your carefully developed and n-times aligned strategy to your team, your boss or any board. And then there is this one person who interrupts with the remark ‘But A,B and C will not work and anyhow the project will take forever!’. But there are also no suggestions on how to overcome those challenges.
We see those kind of disablers especially in the context of transformational activities like introduction of digital technologies, new systems or processes.
Why can this be a problem?
The above mentioned scenario is only an example. Usually this reaction is a predominant pattern in any kind of activity you and that person do together. This problem can affect multiple areas:
1) according to behavioural studies, overall team performance drops by 20–50% if only one member of the team showcases misalignment or demotivation. There is a high risk of spill over to other colleagues and peers.
2) Situations and Feedback like this directly puts us into fight-or flight mode. This is a result of our biology and the need of ours to be accepted within a community. Since flight-out of the meeting is not an option, we tend to fight. We start shooting back with alternatives or counter arguments which result in turn in further reasons why the ideas might be wrong. A vicious circle, which undermines trust and relationships and can also make you look pretty helpless in front of your audience.
3) They are non-productive and cost your energy. Energy is a finite resource but vital for your personal success, especially as a leader. High energetic people are more successful and capable of influencing and motivating people. If your energy gets drained, your capabilities will suffer.
How to deal with the Problem-Only Type?
Ignoring or overpowering is the wrong solution. It is important that people can give open and honest feedback. Also, there might be a point in that feedback, you did not yet see. Your ability for change management is required.
Most important thing: no Cowboy management aka shooting of solutions from the hips without trying to understand the problem. Instead, leading by questions is required. Asking of a magnitude of open questions to provide context to the the remarks ensures that, on the one hand the counterpart feels understood and gets the room for his or her remarks. On the other hand, you ensure to stay in the lead. It’s not you under fire but the other party. In addition to that, another important tool is to ask for concrete proposals on how to overcome the mentioned challenges. It’s good that someone saw a problem, but it’s more vital to find a solution. Both concepts together we call: make them part of the problem and the solution. By applying those techniques, you make sure that this person knows that when there are remarks, there also need to be constructive solutions. This reduces the likelihood that unsolicited and unproductive feedback is given. It also emphasises your leadership abilities in front of your colleagues and peers. You lead by questions, have the ability to find commonly accepted solutions and you remain high energy.
Can – I – Finish? The Interrupter Type
I guess everybody experienced that once in a while. You try to make your point in a heated discussion, but there is that one person who never lets you finish your sentence.
We find those types usually in peer context. Managers or employees on the same level discussing on especially technical or methodological topics.
Why can this be a problem?
When talking about technical or methodological topics, we often talk about complex cause and effect relationships. Those require a lot of context and structured explanation. Getting interrupted here, undermines your ability to explain those topics and disturbs your flow. You can lose the red thread in your presentation and therefore the attention of your audience. When the audience consist of your peers and your boss, being able to make a point is vital for your success. In addition to that, it’s just bad manners to interrupt. Respect and general table manners are the basis for a healthy corporate culture. It might seem like a small thing, but they can spill over to other areas and result in bigger cultural issues.
How to deal with the Interrupter-Type?
Needless to say that eye-for-an-eye, interrupting him or her, too, as well as talking louder overpowering the other side is not the right option.
Instead, a three-level approach is suggested. First, independent how hard it is in that moment, provide the ability for the other side to finish the remark. Ideally sum up the mentioned viewpoint to signalise you understood and especially listened. Because in 9/10 cases, that’s the underlying reason for the interruption: the other party does not feel heard or understood. It’s your chance (and job) to ensure, that this is not the case. In addition to that, during your presentations allow for regular feedback and ask open questions. If you use slides, a good rule of thumb is to ask after each slide for feedback or remarks.
Applying both, you create an environment of trust and openness, which in turn reduces the likelihood for interruption. Having had plenty of opportunities to voice their opinion places an additional barrier for the interrupter to get into action.
If level one does not show the desired impact or if the underlying problem was not the feeling of not being heard, level two can be applied. Level two is a one-to-one feedback, in which exactly and only the problem with the recurring interruptions is addressed. Don’t add the interruptions to the end of a list of discussions. Ensure the problem is not soft-pedaled or even slips off the agenda because of lack of time. Regular feedback rules apply. Best result is achieved with the classic SBI (Situation, Behavior, Impact) model. This ensures, that feedback given is not understood as criticism and the interrupter can relate to your personal standpoint.
Level two should not (yet) be used, if the interruptions are not a clearly distinguishable pattern. If you got interrupted once in a meeting – despite applying rules of level one – it is definitely not a reason to be addressed in one-to-one.
In the worst and usually rare case, that neither the communication techniques of level 1 and the personal intervention of level 2 did its magic, the last level of escalation need to be used. And this is plain and simple. Call him or her out. In the meeting. In front of everyone else. Considering the fact, that you provided room for feedback and even explained in a personal meeting your problem with that behavior, there is no other way but clearly showing that the interruptions are no longer accepted. This will definitely not help with your relationship with the person as well as with his or her behavior. However, it will ensure that the people around you understand the importance and also, that there are borders which should not be crossed.
Level three can and should only be used in hard cases and when all other levels were correctly applied without result. Also, the tone of how level three is put into place plays a vital role in how others will perceive you moving forward. Smart, calm and polite: strong leadership. Emotional, aggressive and disrespectful: not so good :-)
Let’s have another meeting for that. The Always-In-Meeting-Type
Meetings aren’t bad. The way we use them is. What I had to endure in the last few years was a severe deterioration of the purpose of meetings. What started with the idea of alignment and making sure decisions are taken quickly, ended up in rooms full of people, no agenda, everybody busy with their phones or laptops and basically no outcome. I saw people spending the whole week playing Tetris with the scheduling assistant, to make sure the meeting fits everyone’s schedule, independent how unimportant their participation is.
Writing those lines make my heart rate spike. Similar to when someone forwards meeting invites and I get that notification. Not invited. Not needed. Duh!
Why can this be a problem?
As the main purpose of meetings is to align topics and people, usually this means that time spent in meetings = time not available to actually do the actual work. If your team spends the whole day in meetings, guess how much work gets done? Zero. Sounds harsh, but it’s the unfortunate reality.
Given the ever growing disease, that literally everyone needs to participate in every meeting, it becomes impossible to arrange those meetings timely and when they are needed. It can take multiple weeks to get basic alignments done, just because the one or other person cannot join on that very day.
Last but not least, those type of people are constantly stressed. Stressed because they are always in meetings and cant get shit done. Also stressed when they are not in meetings, because to them, it means they are not important or they might miss out on something. Stress is not good for you and not for them.
How to deal with the Always-In-Meetings Type?
Is it a peer or a direct report? Based on that action can be taken.
For peers your influence can be little. It’s not your responsibility how they spend their precious time. However, you can influence when it affects you. If there is no agenda provided, ask for an agenda. If there are more people on the list, you think there are needed, ask if everyone invited is actually needed. There might be no bad intention for that behaviour and maybe nobody ever questioned it. So those simple actions might already do the trick.
For your direct reports, it’s definitely in your interest, that time spent makes sense. You won’t though micromanage. Try to understand, if the meetings he or she sets up or is invited to are relevant to him or her. Help to understand that being in meetings doesn’t mean being important. Also, never appreciate being super busy. This will reinforce the urge to have the calendar packed with appointments.
Independent, though, if peer or direct report, the most powerful tool for that type of disabler is your own example. Never invite without clear agenda, keep the invites relevant, never pull out your phone to distract yourself during a meeting, feel free to stand up and leave a meeting if you feel it is irrelevant. Needless to say, that practising what you preach is required.
And last but not least: don’t be stuck in meetings all the time by yourself :-) if your peers or colleagues see you on your desk working or that little dot on Teams reflecting your status flashing in green, it can send a powerful message that it is ok to not be stuck in meetings all day.