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.