OK. Background: I am in a conversation with a small group. I bring up a legitimate question about a problem we have had in the past, bringing it forward to be sure we address it so it isn't a problem in the future, and I have others who feel as I do, but they are less outspoken as I am, waiting to see what can be done, not so willing to do anything themselves. (I should note that the error/problem in the past was a source of embarrassment when it came to light--akin to someone telling you you had spinach on your teeth. Some folks let you have spinach on your teeth, afraid to embarrass themselves by telling you. I'm more the personality-type to tell you so you don't continue embarrassing yourself.)

Now, here's the question: I asked the question I had and the person in charge immediately countered with "Time to move forward, things are becoming positive now so let's not dwell on the past." So my question now to AMHD is: How do I best redirect this--what words do I use?--so that the topic can be discussed without looking like the negative-nelly this person is trying to pin on me? In other words, I'm seeing this as a hide-their-head-in-the-sand mentality coupled with them trying to make me look bad for even asking about what they're busy ignoring. How do I deflect/counter this?

I assume the person that said "Time to move forward..." was a superior and not a co-work or equal standing.

And the Rules of conducting a meeting means that person is in charge and can steer it however he sees fit.

Sorry to say it... but sometimes you just have to suck it up and let it drop when you are instructed to. When you are in charge of the meeting then it will be up to you to set the rules.

That's not being rude... but that's how it works in the real world... from a lowly business meeting up through Sessions of Congress or Parliament.

The text would be "Roberts Rules of Order"

Introduction to Robert's Rules of Order

If you insist of redirecting or deflecting directions... then it makes you appear immature and unschooled in business practices. Which only hurts you for being credible.

Its not a situation where the person who shouts the loudest, or is the most pushy wins.

Yeah it will seem unfair at first... but when you understand what thses rules are and why they are used... they make perfect sense.

You said it yourself, they are afraid to embarrass themselves by letting you know that you had spinach on your teeth. If that's how they feel, then you can't change them. They have to change themselves.

You already voiced your opinion, but it's up to them to decide how they want to proceed. You can't force them to do anything that they don't want.

No, not a superior. This entire group is made up of equals. The boss isn't even present. We are tasked simply with forming group to get a project done (and hopefully done right).

Quote:

---

appear immature and unschooled in business practices

---

is our biggest worry, and you are right we aren't too 'schooled' I guess. But can I please ask you another question so I can get more 'schooled'?

The 'person in charge' was only the moderator of our group. We are actually 'grouped' across the city. Moderator was not exactly 'elected' or anything, just the first one who started 'speaking' (actually this is being done via on-line group) and thus took charge. I am sitting with a few people at the computer who agree with me and we don't want to come across as you have pointed out. Are sensitive to the fact that this person is trying to do exactly that, when in fact most of us don't want this error to happen again and need the problem addressed. We can guarantee it will occur again if we don't put something in place now to handle it. IS there any professional way of redirecting this to turn the tables on this one who wants only to look good for now and not actually do a good job that will last?

Ok... look at it from this perspective then. This is a GROUP project... persuing that will foster disunity, and hurt teamwork in the group.

In the interest of what's best for the group, and the project... you should let it drop... you raised the point... it was rejected... continuing to pursue it will only be counter productive at this point. Discussions SHOULD be limited to those directly relivent to the project at hand. And be limited to achieving the goals you are tasked with. Anything on a tangent only distracts the group from its goal.

I'm saying this as someone who has participated in many such meetings... and had received training on the topic. Yes there are training programs on that sort of thing.

There will always be certain issues certain people won't be happy about. Its all about coming together in the interest of the project. This time its you, next time it might be someone else. And there is nothing to indicate there isn't other issues others feel strongly about too.

Believe me, Smoothy, I understand and highly respect your answer. AND THANK YOU. This isn't 'me' to do so, but then I guess my follow-up Q is: how might I delicately extract myself from the process I was so gung-ho before about since now I can see it is only destined to fail? I'm not intending to be an "I told you so-er' later, I'd rather just walk away and never know what happens. But a group of us see our work will be for naught and just want to leave the project to those who are, as you say, directing it their way. What we don't want is to back out now and then later have them blame us when it fails since we didn't push the issue we know full well will come back and bite them in the arse. (We've known these folks before for behaving this way, and as such seek to take each of our steps very carefully... )

Quote:

---

training programs on that sort of thing.

---

By the way: Any suggested reading? THANKS! (I am an admitted dummy on 'team' sports/politics)

Can you come at it from a positive perspective? Not, "You have spinach between your teeth," but, "I came across a new dental floss that's chocolate flavored. Here's a sample dispenser for each of you."

Can you tell us in 25 words or less what the problem process is?

Yes, perhaps that's what I'm looking for! Can you give me more words like that?

If you tell us the process, I could probably spin the negative you've had trouble with into a positive for you. (I had a boss who was always pushing weird and unworkable ideas on our department, so I learned quickly how to re-spin what I knew would fail. Of course, she always took credit for the successes that resulted.)

25 words or less, probably not if you are familiar w/ my other posts!

We now have a group of 60 people interested in a project that previously had only 10 of the same people always working on it, STP, they call it--same 10 people--because they have customarily been almost covert in their language and information-giving so no one knows enough to get involved. I've been part of this group since day one, but rather than complain all day about STP, I proactively try to figure out how to avoid it. (Make it more than the same 10 people) As it so happened, an embarrassing event took place which involved our group and that is what attracted all the people to become interested (kinda like any news is good news) Sure, they came because of the negative (human nature, I guess) and they want answers about that negative but they equally seem interested in being a part of the group now to ensure the negative doesn't happen again. Because I stop and explain stuff to people, break it down into manageable pieces of work, I think I can retain these 50 new people, but the other STP would rather ignore the Q's and go back to wallow soonafter in STP.

I feel like we all are shooting in the dark here without knowing what you brought up to the group.
You felt it needed further discussion and another person felt it didn't. So what was it?
And did no one else weigh in?

A company I worked for once: The top people were in a meeting but the CEO was late. They were talking about him in a negative way and clammed up when he walked in. He asked what they had been talking about, and everyone was mute. After several seconds one person said 'You.'
That person that it was important to discuss negativity for the good of the company, regardless of what personal feelings might come out in the open, and in fact deliberately wanting them in the open.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wallabee4

Believe me, Smoothy, I understand and highly respect your answer. AND THANK YOU. This isn't 'me' to do so, but then I guess my follow-up Q is: how might I delicately extract myself from the process I was so gung-ho before about since now I can see it is only destined to fail? I'm not intending to be an "I told you so-er' later, I'd rather just walk away and never know what happens. But a group of us see our work will be for naught and just want to leave the project to those who are, as you say, directing it their way. What we don't want is to back out now and then later have them blame us when it fails since we didn't push the issue we know full well will come back and bite them in the arse. (We've known these folks before for behaving this way, and as such seek to take each of our steps very carefully...)

---

You may not be able to extract yourself because I assume you were assigned to the group. You are right about not saying I-told-you-so, what would I do... simply not repeat what you initially got shot down on, but by all means contribute with your input to the end goal you are tasked with. Try to leave any personal issues you have with anyone out of it. Focus on the task alone. With time you will learn how to do this as a second nature.

I'm not so sure specifics would be useful because I or others might not be knowledgeable in your particular line of work. These answers are mostly geared at the clockwork of the team, and the interaction between them. There are several personality types... and its important to recognizing them and tailoring to them, and getting the most out of each person.

But is this conflict a personality conflict... or is this a finite methodology related to the project that is proven to be faulty?

If its personality... you ignore it. If it's a real issue that's known and proven that has problems and they intend to repeat it, then it is something you should get resolution on... or lacking that, if you have a better approach or different way to achieve the goal that meets the company standards and guidelines... then by all means present it.

If its one individual that's completely dominating things and completely unwilling to hear input of anyone else... (assuming others see it too).. then it may be an issue you can bring up to a Superior. Remember it's a lot of delicate negotiations... and not a bunch of High School jocks throwing their weight around to get their way.

As far as recommended reading... I have to look something up. The training I received was proprietary Corporate stuff you won't have access to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wallabee4

Believe me, Smoothy, I understand and highly respect your answer. AND THANK YOU. This isn't 'me' to do so, but then I guess my follow-up Q is: how might I delicately extract myself from the process I was so gung-ho before about since now I can see it is only destined to fail? I'm not intending to be an "I told you so-er' later, I'd rather just walk away and never know what happens. But a group of us see our work will be for naught and just want to leave the project to those who are, as you say, directing it their way. What we don't want is to back out now and then later have them blame us when it fails since we didn't push the issue we know full well will come back and bite them in the arse. (We've known these folks before for behaving this way, and as such seek to take each of our steps very carefully...)

---

You may not be able to extract yourself because I assume you were assigned to the group. You are right about not saying I-told-you-so, what would I do?. simply not repeat what you initially got shot down on, but by all means contribute with your input to the end goal you are tasked with. Try to leave any personal issues you have with anyone out of it. Focus on the task alone. With time you will learn how to do this as a second nature.

I'm not so sure specifics would be useful because I or others might not be knowledgeable in your particular line of work. These answers are mostly geared at the clockwork of the team, and the interaction between them. There are several personality types... and its important to recognizing them and tailoring to them, and getting the most out of each person.

But is this conflict a personality conflict... or is this a finite methodology related to the project that is proven to be faulty?

If its personality... you ignore it. If it's a real issue that's known and proven that has problems and they intend to repeat it, then it is something you should get resolution on... or lacking that, if you have a better approach or different way to achieve the goal that meets the company standards and guidelines... then by all means present it.

If its one individual that's completely dominating things and completely unwilling to hear input of anyone else... (assuming others see it too).. then it may be an issue you can bring up to a Superior. Remember it's a lot of delicate negotiations... and not a bunch of High School jocks throwing their weight around to get their way.

As far as recommended reading... I have to look something up. The training I received was proprietary Corporate stuff you won't have access to. I work for a large enough company they have their own trainng dept that creates their own full fledged training programs of various types.

What is STP? It's a term I'm not familiar with. At least not as that acronym.

STP same ten people

So can, say, five new people from the 50 be added to the group of STP?

Sounds like our summer reading committee, was always STP, but the boss decided to "fire" all of them in favor of several new, young hires who had small children and "understood children" better than the STP whose children were adult now. None of the STP were allowed to be part of the new committee. Totally fresh ideas were what was needed, the boss thought. Well, she was wrong, The STP knew about pitfalls and what had failed in the past, but could give no input. The new committee failed miserably and summer reading numbers went down drastically.

My point is, retaining some of the STP would have worked fine, and the boss could have also added some new blood to the committee. Thus, the revamped committee would have had the program's history and caveats, but also new ideas injected.

Duh... I should have caught that. Saw it reading through it again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

He asked what they had been talking about, and everyone was mute. After several seconds one person said 'You.'

---

And that should have been followed with a positive -- "We really like the way you straighten up your desk at the end of the day. That should inspire all of us to do the same, so we're ready for the next workday."