Watch Out for the Subject-changers

A year or two ago, I was in a meeting at which the participants were seated at round tables. This arrangement raises alarm bells in the head of any introvert, because it suggests that at some point during the meeting, participants are going to be given a topic and directed to "discuss at your table" (the dead giveaway is the pile of sticky notes and colored adhesive dots on the table).

Well, sure enough, we came to a certain point in the agenda and then it was time to discuss some questions at our tables. In this case, each table was joined by someone from the organization sponsoring the meeting, to help jump-start or guide the discussion as needed. During the course of our conversation at my table, I raised a question; as I recall, it was a slightly challenging one that had some bearing on the assumptions behind our topic. The organization rep responded by saying "Could we reframe that question, like this...?", and then proceeded to ask what seemed to me like a related, but still very different, question.

So I pushed back. I said something like "What you're proposing seems to me like not so much a reframing of my question as a change of subject. Your question is a good one, but I'd really like us to address my question too, if we can."

Following that experience, I found myself reflecting on the number of times I've witnesses people using the Reframing Gambit to change the subject from a less-comfortable one to a more-comfortable one.

I've seen other, similar strategies employed for the same purpose as well. One of my (least) favorites is the It's Not About Gambit. This comes into play when Emily raises an issue that Brian doesn't want to talk about, and Brian tries to cut off discussion of that issue by saying "It's not about [your issue]; it's about [my issue]." When this strategy is employed, it's rarely clear what the antecedent of "it" is – when Brian says "It's not about [X]...," the question left unaddressed is "What isn't about [X]"? – but that very vagueness, along with the aggressiveness inherent in telling someone else that the issue they've raised isn't worth discussing, can be very effective in shutting down the undesired conversation.

Another is what I call the This Won't Cure Cancer Gambit. In the course of a group discussion, Hank proposes a solution to Problem A, and Bettina doesn't like the proposed solution, but for whatever reason would rather not argue on the merits, so instead she asserts that the proposed solution won't solve Larger Problem B. The exchange might look something like this:

Hank: "I keep getting questions from students wondering if we could stay open later during finals. They say they're often still in the middle of studying when we kick them out at midnight. Should we try staying open until 2:00 am during finals week?

Bettina: "Staying open two more hours on those nights is not going to solve the problem of students procrastinating their study until the last minute."

Yet another is the Real Problem Gambit. During a meeting, Jasmine raises a concern that Paul either is uncomfortable with or does not think merits discussion, so Paul says "[X] isn't the real problem. The real problem is [Y]." Bam. Subject changed – unless, of course, Jasmine is willing to stand up for herself and say something like "Hang on, Paul. The problem you've raised is indeed real, but I think the one I raised is also worth discussing and I'd like us to address it too."

And this is where leadership comes in. Because ideally, the person whose line of inquiry is being shut down in any of these scenarios really shouldn't have to stand up for him- or herself against the person who is trying to change the subject; whoever is leading the meeting should take care of that. The bad news is that doing so requires the ability and willingness to confront inappropriate meeting behavior, which can be very uncomfortable. The good news is that the intervention doesn't have to be harsh or unpleasant; in fact, it will be more effective if it's gentle but firm. Possible examples of such interventions include:

"Brian, I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'it's not about [X],' but I think Emily has raised an important issue and I'd like us to discuss it. It sounds like you have another issue you'd like us to address as well, so let's make sure we come back to that."

"Bettina, I think you're right that student procrastination is a bigger and more complex problem, and that staying open later during finals won't solve it. But it's possible that staying open later would help students in ways that are worth the trouble and cost, so let's focus on that question for a moment."

"Paul, what you've raised is a real problem, but what Jasmine raised is a real problem too. Let's address both of them, starting with Jasmine's concern."

Taking this approach has multiple benefits:

• It signals to your employees that you won't let them be bullied.
• It keeps the meeting on track.
• It ensure that everyone has a voice – even the person who is trying to stifle someone else's.

Takeaways and Action Items

• If you're in charge of a meeting or discussion, part of your job is to protect those whom others may try to silence or shut down.
• When doing so, remaining respectful and gentle is important; so is being firm.
• Have you experienced this kind of behavior in a meeting at which you were not in charge? If so, what did the leader in that context do that worked well? Were there things you wish s/he had done differently?