If the Chef poorly moderated
You may know that: You are sitting in the meeting and colleague X has far too much speaking time. For example, because the moderator lets individual participants talk too long or is overwhelmed by a fiercer discussion.
And the bad thing: you can not even say anything against it, because often the moderator is the boss. But: With questions and suggestions you can act indirectly - and save the meeting. What helps? Just moderate with. But indirectly, because the moderator should not lose face.
Constructive demand as a means of choice
The tool of choice: constructive demands. Because this does not lose the presenter's face. At the same time you act like a particularly dedicated participant.
In addition, questioning techniques are first directed by you so that you do not have to defend your arguments. They then help to find solutions in the group in a joint and constructive way without anybody being attacked. Questions are therefore the optimal technique for a successful meeting.
3 typical problems in meetings
The situations in which the questions can be asked are, of course, very different, but if you look closely, it turns out that the following three schemes are typical for meetings and can almost always be applied:
Prooblem 1: Direct attack
Another participant attacks an idea or a speech by setting up a counter-thesis, eg "That sounds nice, but we have had different experiences with it." Now it's against statement. The trick: Just ask if the situation was described correctly. That is how it goes:
- Ask for clarification if the information is too vague: "Who's special?" "How exactly?" "Everyone?" "What percent?" Etc.
- Ask for additional information, if you want to know more: "Who else was involved?" "Who was affected?" "Who was responsible?" "What happened?" "Would you like to report how that was?"
- Compare the new information of a conversation partner with known information to get a clearer picture: "In comparison to what?"
- Distract rhetorically with a question of understanding and let the other explain: "Did I understand you correctly, you say that ..."
Problem 2: Attention whiners!
One participant judges the consequences of your proposal much more negatively than you do, like this: "That sounds nice, but I think that will significantly reduce productivity."
Now you should find out whether the action actually leads to the supposed consequences or whether others are to be expected. That is how it goes:
- Ask all participants to consider what the possible consequences might be: "Have we considered all the consequences?" "What else can come of it?" "Are there any alternatives?" "Have we forgotten something?"
- Exaggerate possible consequences: "What can happen in the worst case, if we choose this option?" They make it clear that it can not be so bad, and that the doomsayers have hopelessly exaggerated.
- Ask for justification: "Why is this solution the best?" "Why is option 1 option preferable to 2?" "What are our reasons for rejecting this idea?"
- Make this question conscious to everyone, including yourself. They make it clear that you too are thinking along. If you only ask this question to other participants, they will be forced into justification by the "why?" - and that creates resistance. Lead the others deliberately into a dead end to clarify the absurdity of the fears: "What do we have to do to keep the problem?" "What can happen if we continue to solve the problem?" You do it It is also clear that it is better to act instead of staying idle - and have the laughs on your side.
Problem 3: The generality is right
One participant attacks your argument by referring to a common consensus: "That's nice, but we all know that's way too idealistic: no one works more than he absolutely has to."
The trick is simple: the majority is not mistaken; something that everyone knows is irrefutable. If you do, there is something wrong with you (at least you feel like that), so you have little chance of justifying your opinion. But is general opinion correct at all? Encourage the other participants to reflect:
- Find out why a position is important to someone: "What's especially important to you?" "What's in your favor here?"
- Ask how someone has come to his view, "What made you think so?"
- Break down the general perspective on individual cases by distinguishing: "That applies to this case, but does that also apply to ...?", "That action fit in there - but how is that in this context?"
- Invite the other attendees to change perspective: "If we look at it from the customer's perspective, how would he see that?" "How do you think our boss would react?"
More knowledge - Podcast, PDF download, eCourse or personal advice
Offline download: Download this text as PDF - Read usage rights, Because we do not automatically submit the title of this text for privacy reasons: When buying in "interests" the title register if support is needed. After buying text exclusively Download at this URL (please save).
Listen to Podcast & Download MP3: You can listen to this text for free, as member even without annoying popup, or download the MP3 for a fee - Read usage rights, After the purchase page refresh, then you will find the download link here. Because we do not automatically submit the title of this podcast for privacy reasons: When buying in "interests" the title register if support is needed.
Your eCourse on Demand: Choose your personal eCourse on this or another desired topic, As a PDF download. Up to 30 lessons with each 4 learning task + final lesson. Please enter the title under "interests". Alternatively, we are happy to put together your course for you or offer you a personal regular eMailCourse including supervision and certificate - all further information!
Consultant packages: You want to increase your reach or address applicants as an employer? For these and other topics we offer special Consultant packages (overview) - For example, a personal phone call (price is per hour).