Right, this has to be obliquer than I normally do;
Wtf is it with people and their needs for affirmation/affiliation/attention in meetings? They just blurt out stuff randomly that takes the collective (sic) process (sic) nowhere. And ignore that other people have had their hands up etc
Didn’t they learn “turn-taking” in kindergarten? I mean, I nailed that by secondary school. Ok, during my BA. Oh, alright, did remedial work in my BSc. Flunked it. It’s a learning objective in my profe… well, you know what I mean.
Can’t they park their chest-beating needs until a group has actually followed through on the important short-term goal that everyone has agreed? That’s a rhetorical question, btw.
So, I walked. Not because I was less angry (see previous post), but because I now know (again – I’ll forget again) that my anger Doesn’t Help Matters.
Which brings me to the second half of the title.
Twice in three days I’ve tried to “back-seat facilitate” when a process was going seriously awry (and no, that’s not purely subjective – there are some reasonable metrics of poor process, imho).
And both times I failed (where previously I’ve had some success).
But, success or failure is only one angle – another is “dare I disturb [someone else's] universe?”
Personally, if a meeting I was facilitating was going badly wrong and someone made implementable and concrete suggestions, I like to believe (and I have some evidence) that I’d leap at it. But I understand not everyone is so minded.
What experience do readers have of back-seat facilitation, as givers or takers? What do people think are the ethical dimensions? It’s easy to be a bull in a china shop, I know. Is it best to invoke the law of two feet, as I did? Or is that just a flounce and a cowardly cop-out?
PS The first half of the title is a conscious echo of this.