Remember

Adapt: accept that the order/direction of the meeting might be changed

A frequent trap: follow your plan no matter what happens! Keep your path, have the objective in mind, ok. But to reach it, you sometimes have to, just for an instant, jump into the opposition, rush in, and take a direction contrary to the one you want everyone to take.

Provoke the opponents to speak

It's often the opposite of what you would naturally do but you have to force the other to describe, dig deeper, develop, illustrate the object of their disagreement. Sometimes you feel it's a waste of time, or that this weakens you against the opposition. Not at all, it calms the growing tension and you have ammunition to move to the next point!

Rank the key ideas before replying

Once the oppositions have been expressed you have to treat them. The easiest and the best way to leave your mark is to link them together, to rank them and integrate the replies into the meeting.

Evaluation

Each question has only one correct response, but be careful: among the possible responses there is one that is "almost correct" and might make the choice harder!

1 / 3 A participant doesn’t see the point of the meeting…

The meeting has been in progress for 15 minutes when a participant intervenes “But we know all that, there was no point in having a meeting”. What do you reply?

I’d be surprised if you’ve already been informed of all this, the information hasn’t been released yet ⚠

Aggressive response: it won’t calm the tension and will make the candidate want to justify himself.

Of course it’s annoying if you’re not learning anything… [addressing the rest of the group] is this the case for all of you? ✓

An essential question: You won’t pursue the meeting in the same manner if the lack of interest is shared by all the participants.

I’m sorry the meeting is a waste of time for you. How much information do you know about the subject? ⚠

You show that you have heard the message, and your question opens a dialogue. Reason for which it’s not the best response: before going any further, it would be better to find out whether the opinion is shared by the others; otherwise, you risk excluding them.

As yet, I have only exposed the broad outlines, the key points, which I’m getting to, are new. ⚠

This could, indeed, help make the participant wait a little longer, but it means that the meeting is too long, because you didn’t get straight to the heart of the matter.

2 / 3 How should we respond to misgivings ?

During the meeting you present the scheduled program for a large project over the next 3 months. The team doesn’t react, seems disconnected. Without being aggressive, one of your collaborators says “In any case we won’t be able to stick to it…” What do you say to this?

I understand you have fears, it’s legitimate… but what bothers me is that you seem sure the project will fail. What will make us fail, in your opinion? ✓

We take note of these misgivings, without judgment, and accept taking into consideration the collaborator’s point of view. The question will lead him to clarifying what he thinks, and create a discussion with the team.

But why so pessimistic? On the contrary, we will organise ourselves in order to succeed… ⚠

The question isn’t a question, and won’t allow us to understand the collaborator’s apprehensions. And the reply “we will organize ourselves” closes the discussion.

But don’t worry, it’s not going to be easy all the time, but we’ll get there and we’ll be proud of ourselves! ⚠

This reply sounds like “stay positive whatever”, and won’t convince anyone.

You’re not very positive towards the project, is this how everyone feels? ⚠

Asking all the team members the question is a good idea, but the criticism “You’re not very positive” diminishes the quality of the question.

3 / 3 Immediate justification is pointless

Faced with an objection or an attack, using immediate justification in defence doesn’t have the desired effect. What is the main reason?

In the heat of the moment, we, ourselves, attack. ⚠

It’s possible, but even justification without being aggressive wouldn’t be effective.

Our interlocutor is looking to destabilise us, he will take advantage of our justification to rub salt into the wound. ⚠

Our interlocutor is looking to destabilise us, he will take advantage of our justification to rub salt into the wound.

Our interlocutor isn’t ready to listen to us right away. ✓

Indeed, he first needs to know that we are taking into account his remarks. Only then will the tension subside, and he will be ready to listen.

Your score is

0/3

You finished!

To review the questions and responses, please choose from the list below.

Manage a tense meeting