How I handle leaders who disrupt the session they asked me to run 😵

There is a special place for leaders who ask you to lead an open collaboration session and then spend that session shutting down ideas*

 

Here’s the scenario.

You’ve been asked (or have decided) to run a collaborative session.

You’re going to create a space where people can think, explore and shape something together.

You have a flow planned out and you know how you will lead this session.

BUT you are getting massive red flags from senior people and you know they just might totally derail this session. Even though they were the ones who asked you to run it! I call them Problematic Sponsors.

 

Them: “I want you to run a collaborative, inspiring innovation session! I want my teams to really step up and own these problems!”

Also them: “But I will decide what gets innovated, ok?”

 

What are your options? You could go hardcore refuse to run it. But you may not feel that open is available to you.

I was also hugely taken with this idea:

 

 

Back to reality. I get the case for refusing to play.

But the reason I believe what I believe and do what I do is because of what I have seen modelled in the early stages of my career.

Now it’s my job to provide experiences from which other people can learn - people who may never have had mindsets and techniques role modelled to them before.

No wonder they don't get it - they've never really seen it! I can change that.

I now handle the Problematic Sponsor a lot better. There are four specific things I do and say at various points that have massively reduced the derailing. I’ll explain what to look out for - and then talk you through the four steps.

 

Red flags you should be worried about before a session

If I hear any of these from a senior sponsor, I’m all over it.

- “We want lots of good ideas of course but ultimately I’ll decide what goes forward” (not that this is 100% wrong - but to start by underlining this, is a red flag for me)

- “I just don’t think we need more than an hour for this?”

- “That person doesn’t need to be there - I’m not sure they have any real ideas to contribute” (again technically not 100% wrong in every case but a red flag about discarding input, depending on tone)

- “I’m sure I’ll help you lead it at various points - I’ve done lots of these ‘brainstorming’ sessions before!” (gulp)

- “If we’re not getting anywhere, we can always shut it down early”

- “I don’t want people to be off the job too long, ok?”

- “I’d like to present my thoughts at the start”

 

Or you might have simply experienced them derailing other meetings. They have form…

When I hear this kind of thing, here’s what I do.

 

Obvious and boring step 0 - expectation setting and alignment

Here I’m getting clear on what they want to get out it and what they want me to do (and why).

AND I’m getting to their real mindset about it.

Big distinction:

Do they truly believe in a creating an open and collaborative session but are just struggle with impulse control issues in the moment?


OR.. are they simply parroting an idea about a collaborative workshop without really believing in the power of open collaboration?

I can work with either (and what better way to start believing in the power of open collaboration than by seeing it done brilliantly in action!) but I ideally want to understand where their head is at.

 

Step 1 - Laying out my working

In this step, I’m going to play back what they’ve asked me to achieve and show them the critical ingredients for doing this - an open, psychologically safe space with a clear flow and some helpful scaffolding to allow everyone to contribute at their best.

I will be making it 100% clear why this is important, which elements of my design work to achieve this and why and also spelling out exactly what their role in that is.

E.g. if we ask people to generate options for solving this problem and then discount or discard them outside of the evaluation process, we will not achieve the quality of thinking we need in the session and we will damage trust outside of the session. So I need you to welcome ALL contributions and remain open to ALL possibilities throughout the session.

At the end of this stage, they should understand enough of the design of the session to be in no doubt as to how it work and what their role is.

I will do this probably at a group level - with all the stakeholders for this meeting in our planning session.

 

Step 2 - The 1:1 Pre-Hearsal

I will then work with each Red Flag leader individually beforehand to pre-hearse the event, imagine how they might feel and then discuss how they will respond.

 

First I ask them about two things:

- What are you hoping will happen?

- What are you worried MIGHT happen..?

 

This gives them some self awareness and me some clues as to what they might be struggling with that's sending their behaviour off course.

Let's run through the Pre-Hearsal using Isaac as our example. He's a very driven and incisive leader and he is worried people are going to end up in lengthy discussions about things that are never going to work and waste time. But he also wants people to step up and start solving problems more creatively - and that there are some really interesting views in the room.

 

I’m going going to say something like this with warmth.

“Ok, imagine we’re about 20mins in and people are discussing ideas you think are not viable. How are you going to feel? :-)”

 

We talk about that for a moment. Frustrated, annoyed, impatient are the most common words I hear.

Next thing I’m going to do is validate the strength that underpins that feeling. I might say:

“Isaac, your great strength is that you are hugely determined and incisive leader so I can absolutely see why you might feel like you want to dive right into these discussions and shape them - you feel you have a lot of answers.”

 

I honouring their highest intention but/and I will only validate a legitimate strength I can see. No hot air.

I will then explain the role of that stage for the participants and the journey as a whole e.g.

“It’s important that we thoroughly explore all options and that people feel free to discuss things that may or may not be useful. THAT’S how we will get that rich, creative contribution we need and how we will help people practice taking responsibility for problems. We can't skip that step, tempting as it may be. They're not wasting time, they are practising.”

 

Now we rehearse how they will handle their feeling in the moment.

“So when people are discussing something and you feel impatient, Isaac, you’re going to resist the urge to jump in :-)” <— again said with huge warmth.

 

And what I need them to do instead.

“You’re going to let all those contributions flow and let people discuss them. Let that stage happen in full, as we've planned it, so we get that great outcome we need. Please write your points down - then they are ready for us to come back to later.”

 

By now they are almost always nodding along. They know I hear their highest intention and I’m not judging them.

And now for the boundary:

“So if you end up feeling frustrated and jumping in on the discussion - with the best of intentions, I know! - I will ask you to hold that thought until the discussion has finished and write down your thoughts on a piece of paper for us to talk through later”

 

See what we just did? We got Isaac to pre-hearse the scenario, how he feels about it, the urge he might have to intervene and how he will manage that urge.

I might also back all this up with a bit of a mantra like “This is a slightly different type of session for you and your team. It may feel uncomfortable at various points. We have a solid process. I will guide us all through it. Trust the process.”

 

But I’m not going to leave to chance from there!

 

Step 3 - The session opener

When I open the session, I’m going to replay all of this out loud to everyone as part of the set up.

I might say:

“Today it’s important that we hear all voices and that we are able to discuss a lot of options fully. I’ve asked Isaac to listen and only ask clarifying questions today so that every can contribute fully all the way through. Even if he feels the urge to get into the detail of the viability of an idea, I’ve asked him to take a pause and write it down so we can have our discussion in full.”

I look at Isaac. Isaac nods. I look back to the group to complete the loop.

Now we’ve made a verbal contract.

That still might not be enough!

 

Step 4 - Hold the boundary

We’re in the session and Isaac is starting to pepper one of the participants with questions about the feasibility of their possible solution before they’ve even finished explaining it. Everyone has quietened down and the mood is shifting fast.

 

It’s my job to advocate on behalf of the space we have committed to holding to allow us to do the work we need to do.

So I am straight in there. I might say:

“Isaac, hold that thought - can you write all those important questions down? They will be so valuable at the evaluation stage.”



 

And then I’ll encourage the participant to keep going by saying something like:

“Let’s assume for now that Isaac’s questions can be successfully answered. Can you flesh out this idea so it’s complete and I will capture it here.”

 

I also have my mantra to come back to which I might say out of earshot of the participants while they are working on something. "Isaac, we have a solid process. I will guide us all through it. Trust the process." <--- more warmth

And on we go.

 

Despite my best efforts, I am not able to control the thoughts and actions of Isaac or anyone else! The session may still go sideways. But it takes a very determined derailer to break this space we have created and that is good enough for 98% of the sessions I run, these days.

For the remainder, there’s radical acceptance.

 

 

Too long, didn’t read (TL:DR)

Me: “Leader, respect the space and trust me as the space holder. Even when it’s uncomfortable.”

Them: “OK”

Everyone else: "Phew. Let's get to work."

 

 

*I will leave you to decide where that place is :-)