The Gift and the Curse of the Skeptic

Do you know how in a group there’s often one person who won’t get on board? He or she just seems to be interminably skeptical and constantly throws stones at whatever the group is working on. And pretty soon, the work feels like a large rock is tied to the back of it, putting a major drag on forward movement.

The group inevitably grows weary. Depending on the situation, the rock’s drag may win out and the project gets dropped. Or in other cases, people in the group will start to look back at the rock and give it nasty looks, shake their heads at it and maybe even come around and cut the rope. In some cases, the group just slogs on, dragging the rock forever.

What’s up with the rock?

At first glance, the rock appears to be the skeptic, which might cause us to think that jettisoning it would be best. But if we start from the stance that everyone has a role in the collaborative process, then we can ask ourselves, what is the role of the skeptic?

Even thinking that the skeptic has a role, much less one of value, can be a challenge since many skeptics use unpleasant tactics to communicate. They often sit apart from the group, mutter under their breath, and when they do contribute, speak out loudly with sarcasm or confrontation. But these behaviors are simply signs of someone trying to get the group’s attention. The more the group ignores the skeptic, the more intense and frequent these behaviors become.

So what’s the answer? The answer lies with both the skeptic and the group.

Let’s deal with the group first. Skepticism means to be doubtful. We all use skepticism to protect ourselves: we are skeptical of politicians’ promises, skeptical of advertising claims, skeptical of things that seem too good to be true – some of us are skeptical if too many people endorse something. The adage “a healthy dose of skepticism” reminds us all to use this critical faculty in our daily lives. The “healthy dose” refers to using it appropriately to the situation.

In many groups, the majority of people will seek convergence. This is a human trait: we are relationship-oriented. Depending on the context, this may take more time or less, but given a clear outcome and process, most people will get on board. The skeptic, then, plays the role of doubter or critic for the group – the skeptic challenges the group’s thinking. This role is essential to achieving effective and lasting results in anything, but particularly in something new. We want and need the tires kicked, so to speak, to make sure we aren’t driving off in a junker.

Understanding the importance of the skeptic’s role, group process can be designed such that everyone has the opportunity to play it. This means that the skepticism can be brought in at the most opportune times in the process and also that the burden for tire-kicking isn’t left to one person or to a small minority. This frees the group to be visionary and innovative together, to be practical and methodical together, and to be critical and skeptical together – each of which is important to the creative process. And if everyone takes on the role of skeptic together, this builds the cohesion of the group, enabling the outlier to join in.

Once the process has been designed to include the skeptic’s role, the next step is for the group to create normative standards for participation. In other words, if the skeptic’s role has been designed into the process, there is no need for one person to take on this role him/herself. Nor is there a need to interject criticism when the group is still in the learning or idea generation phases. This will take place if the group hasn’t made it clear that indeed there will be the opportunity to evaluate and critique as part of the development process. It may also take place if the mistimed skeptic behavior goes unchecked.

So, the group develops its process to clearly include the skeptic role, communicates this from the outset, and monitors that everyone is clear as the process unfolds. Sounds great. But then why do some people still take on the lone skeptic role? Why do these individuals continue to sit outside the circle, pitching rocks in, rolling their eyes, and even jumping up every now and then to rant and rave?

This has to do with the skeptic him or herself and with how generally self-aware the person is. On the extreme end of lack of self-awareness, the skeptic role has become so second-nature to an individual that the person no longer distinguishes between the role and himself. This type of person has become the role. The person may even have come to identify with being the skeptic, to feel her/his self-expression through it, to enjoy it. No longer aware that s/he is greeting every situation in a skeptical stance, this person may even consider him/herself smarter than everyone else because of it and have moved beyond mere skepticism to full-on cynicism. This is an unfortunate state for the individual because anyone that is not aware that skepticism is fine as long as it remains in a “healthy dose” risks becoming the boy who cried wolf – ignored by his peers and ostracized to the back of the room.

Sometimes the skeptic needs more certainty before acting than others – they are more risk-averse. Or they may also have specialized knowledge that causes them to see risks that no one else does. In this case, even if the group dons the skeptic role, this may not feel sufficient, so the skeptic will continue to tire kick long after everyone is well enough satisfied to give whatever it is a try. The key here is to endeavor to identify if the skeptic has a valid point the group has not considered, or if the individual’s risk tolerance is really at issue. And again, the more self-aware the individual is – in this case, the more able s/he is to identify this for him/herself – the more easily the situation can be resolved.

In other cases, the skeptic is playing the role to prevent change from the status quo. Some will even continue the skeptic role into the implementation phase, looking for opportunities to say “I told you so” to undermine the process. This is the worst type of skeptic because their criticisms are really masking a hidden agenda. Most groups can sense this type of behavior, even if it is not openly discussed. But even this skeptic has something they are concerned about protecting, and listening to what this is can bring valuable information to the group.

The issue then is not with the role of the skeptic. The role has the inestimable value of avoidance of pitfalls. The issue is with how and by whom the role is played. The skeptic role is far more productive if openly recognized for its value by the entire group and then explicitly designed into the process. “We are going to dream big and go way out of the box for our solutions, and then we’re going to kick the heck out of the tires to make sure we have success.”

The skeptic role is also more effective if it doesn’t get played by the same one or two people in every situation. And finally, the individual who seems trapped in the role can be coached to see that the role is a choice and that other roles can bring just as much satisfaction. If the individual cannot learn to dissociate from the skeptic (or even cynic) behavior, well, limit their involvement to the tire-kicking phase.

Collaboration: What to do about Politics and Power Plays?

What makes the difference between a collaboration that results in brilliant, new thinking and the ugly opposite: more entrenched, polarized, stuck thinking? One of my readers asked me recently, how do you deal with politics and power plays in collaboration? This is such a great question because it gets at the heart of exactly what makes the difference.

Let’s start by looking at what “politics and power plays” are. Simply put, they are some of the ways people get what they want. They are the way some people work when a clear, open process to get what they want doesn’t exist.

The more vested someone is, the more important it is to them to know how to influence decisions that affect them. And the more extreme their behavior will become in contexts where this is unclear, inaccessible or both. We want to be heard, and if it’s important enough, you and I will go to extreme lengths to be so, even if we look manipulative, rude or downright crazy to everyone else.

Every one of us has experienced areas of life where the way things work is murky, overly complex, and badly (if at all) communicated. Think neighborhoods, schools, municipalities, banking, the office, the tax code, even the produce section at your local grocery store – who is deciding produce selection and what criteria are they using, anyway? Do you take what you can get, or try to influence the process through the suggestion box or a visit to the manager? And if that doesn’t work, do you take your business elsewhere, throw your weight around, or jump up on your soap box?

So, if we all have the capability of extreme tactics to get what we want, what hope is there for collaboration? When we want to use collaboration to get something important done, like develop a plan for sustainable water use, or design and implement a major fundraising event, or develop new office policy around flex time? Won’t these efforts be killed every time by politics, power plays or people just giving up?

The hope comes from understanding these dynamics, what causes them and what to do about them. First, those managing the collaborative process need to remember that people come to the table because they care. They want something. And that’s a good thing. Second, since we want and need vested people in the room, we should anticipate that for them to participate in a productive, effective way (instead of resorting to more extreme behaviors like power plays) they need to understand a few key things:

1. the scope of the collaboration – what is being addressed and, just as important, what is not?
2. the role of those involved in the collaboration – is it to frame the issue, to develop recommendations on it, to provide expert knowledge, or…?
3. the governance process – how will the issue(s) ultimately be decided (what, who, when)?

So, at the beginning, these questions are carefully considered and decided. Let me emphasize: this work happens well in advance of the start of the collaborative effort. These are NOT issues to “wing it” on or to address as you go! Then, communicate the decisions (referred to a “process parameters” or “rules of engagement” or whatever term best fits your situation) as an explicit part of the invitation to participants. Surprisingly, most people are pleased to see that this has been thought through.

Next, re-emphasize the process parameters at the first session, and at all subsequent sessions as needed (e.g., when the collaboration is open and new people come each time, review at each meeting is essential). And all while the collaboration process is underway, it must adhere to the scope, role and governance process as decided. This may seem terribly obvious, but the number of times I have seen people transgress their own process (scope of work, bylaws, charters, job descriptions, etc.) is both stunning and remarkably self-defeating.

People can accept rules and parameters, which are essential to well-functioning group process, but not if they change without warning or reason. And disregarding them wholesale is even worse.  Managing the collaborative process in a way that honors agreements is exactly like a personal relationship: people trust people who do what they say they will.

And this trust is fundamental to achieving great things from collaboration. It’s simple: if people are always worrying about how something is getting done (process), they have less energy to focus on what is being done (content). In collaboration, the goal is to get the collaboration participants fully engaged in the content so that great outcomes can result. The more participants distrust or don’t understand the process, the more they will focus on it – with some people resorting to those negative behaviors that cause collaboration to fail. In countless such efforts, I have experienced the most seemingly aggressive and manipulative participants shift to invaluable members of the team simply because they come to trust the process.

By the way, this is not to say that process parameters can’t change – in multi-year collaborations, there is often a need to re-think them: scope may need to expand or contract, roles shift, governance change. When this occurs, giving participants the heads up well before changes are made and the opportunity to give input is the way to maintain credibility.

In summary, politics and power plays, as well as other challenging behaviors, show up in collaborative processes when there is:

1. lack of clarity about the scope and intent of the collaboration
2. lack of clarity about the roles and other process parameters of the collaboration
3. weak or ineffective adherence to process parameters during collaboration

The good news is that, understanding this, you can see unwanted behavior not as a threat or failure, but as a terrific signal that it is time to re-look at and/or re-clarify these. And remember, basic sincerity about all of this goes a long way in repairing any mis-steps.