Have you ever said something in a meeting that stood out?
Maybe you got the sense that you voiced something important or obvious that needed to be said, or an alternative view to the overall vibe of the conversation — however, instead of a discussion, people just stared at you, or glossed over your view?
But then!
After the meeting, someone approached you and thanked you for saying what you said! Something like: “I’ve been thinking that for a long time and I’m so happy someone finally said it.”
The experience of hearing private words of appreciation for voicing something AFTER a collective meeting might feel frustrating (uh, thanks for not backing me up in the meeting!) however, it’s evidence that you are not the only one feeling resistance, or holding different views to the majority.
If you have ever been in this situation, you were voicing something the group wasn’t fully aware of, or able to say.
In Lewis Deep Democracy, it’s called something that was “under the waterline” or a “No.” And you voiced it in service of the group, even if it doesn’t quite feel that way, because by speaking up, you are shared something that needed to be heard for the health of the group.
Groups need to hear explore the “No”, because it offers potential and insight for sustainable, collective, decisions or creative progress, even if it feels initially uncomfortable or time-consuming.
Groups that do not tap into the potential that alternative views offer tend to be limited and deal with a lot of inter-personal drama that gets in the way of their impact.
For example, everyone might initially agree that it’s important to complete a project to an ambitious timeframe. Everyone seems excited and motivated to achieve this.
However, one person voices concern about rushing the timescale, and asks if there are certain elements that could be rolled out more slowly in order to enable more learning.
This might be seen as annoying, and the responses might turn away from exploring this, for example: We can’t slow down! We have clients, stakeholders depending on us, we need to get this project complete because other priorities are on the horizon. It’s not practical to slow down, we can’t spend time in learning circles when the “real work” needs delivering. I’m really tired of hearing that person always complain we go too quickly. The decision is made to keep the time frame as is, since it’s not practical to slow down.
And the person who voiced the view of slowing down might feel sidelined, not listened to, irritated, or scapegoated.
I have seen this exact scenario play out multiple times.
When it does, I tend to see predictable issues start emerge (perhaps unexpected ways) relating to the timescale.
For example, deadlines that were really not possible to begin with get missed. Mistakes are made with no reflection, so the learning is missed. A high stress environment leads to staff burnout. Timescales “shift” to accommodate what was always an unattainable goal. Tension or conflict within the team dynamics starts to bubble due to these challenges.
The way I see it, is that this is a result of not taking the time initially to lean into the “wisdom in the No”.
How could the team have listened?
They could have engaged in a dialogue on any of these questions: Can we spend 10 minutes exploring the risks associated with going too fast? Does anyone else feel we might be rushing? How might we slow this project down, even if just a little, to enable ongoing learning? Even if we can’t slow down the timescale, what are some ways we can make sure it’s properly resourced so the timescale is possible and doesn’t feel rushed for the team? Is there something we can explore as a team or organisation about our tendency to want to go through project cycles quickly?
You may have witnessed something like this in the past.
Someone offers a point of difference, or a “No” to the majority view. And because it might feel uncomfortable or energetically demanding, it’s ignored.
Groups can get stuck here. For example, there might be people who “always say the thing that stands out/says an alternative view” or the people who “never cause any challenge and always go with the flow”.
Being stuck in these roles means that people stay rigidly attached to their views and therefore less likely to be open to hearing different perspectives. From this stuck place, tension simmers. We might hear different views as a threat or challenge, rather than an opportunity for deep collaboration, creative problem solving, and sustainable decision making.
With a bit of time investment up front, trusting the opportunity of the No saves time in the long term.
You will make better decisions collectively. The group will feel more psychologically safe. You will hear imaginative, creative ideas that support your growth as a team and organisation. People will feel valued, and that they are part of a participative, inclusive culture. Relationships will strengthen, and form a solid foundation for successfully navigating the challenges and opportunities that always lay ahead in organisational life.
In Lewis Deep Democracy, you learn how to healthily surface, welcome, and share alternative points of view within a group, so stuck dynamics don’t get set up that limit your potential.