Don't mistake silence for support
A quiet meeting is not passionately agreeing with you.
The tyranny of silence
I present my idea to the meeting. Faces nod supportively. I outline next steps and take a sip of water.
“So,” I ask this seemingly-engaged group of professionals, “What do you think?
Silence. Stony silence.
I count to ten slowly in my head. Nature abhors a vacuum, and meetings abhor a quiet room.
But not this time. Not so much as a pin drop.
I joke that “silence is acquiescence.” That often does the trick, and someone speaks up.
Another sip of water. Another agonising wait.
At this point, we assume agreement and we all move on to the next topic, the relief almost palpable.
From audience members to participants
A lot of meetings I attend go like this. Sometimes I’m the presenter, sometimes I’m the silent audience member. The meeting moves on, but we can’t be sure there's genuine support for the idea just presented. Silence may be acquiescence, but it’s no substitute for engagement.
Too often, ideas get railroaded through because people don’t have an opportunity or feel able to speak up in the moment. Some people need a little more time to process information, or they may not feel safe to do so in the moment. Some people will actively seek to avoid conflict, but will try to kill the idea afterwards, allowing precious energy to be wasted.
For others, if they’re not actively presenting or involved in the gestation of an idea, they don’t feel any responsibility for it. If I’m lucky, they’re listening and at the very least considering the proposal. If I’m not, they might not even be paying attention, half-listening while dealing with some issue or another on Slack or clearing out their emails.
If I want to avoid my ideas getting wrecked by unsurfaced objections or indifference, what should I do? How do I get challenges out in the open, or an engaged agreement?
Democracy in action?
Would a vote work?
If you can’t be sure people are bought in until they’ve weighed in, you need to make everyone a participant in the debate, even in a transitory way.
In a meeting of peers, you could run a quick gladiator vote. To do this, simply count down from three, and everyone in the meeting has to give a thumbs up or thumbs down to the proposal. You can be generous to the ‘don’t knows’ and let them put their thumbs to the side.
Sometimes I’m the HIPPO in the room, so I need to prevent silent deference. Maybe in those circumstances, a secret ballot or some sort of dot voting would be best.
Peers can be expected to voice an opinion. If the boss is in the room, they vote last in anything other than gladiator voting, which is simultaneous.
In any case, you get people to signal their views.
If the vote is unanimous, then at least you’ve ensured that everyone in the room has a shared position, and people’s desire to be consistent makes it less likely that resistance will form outside the room.
“The drive to be (and look) consistent constitutes a highly potent weapon of social influence” - Robert B. Cialdini, Ph.D. - Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion
Farming for dissent
If you don’t have unanimity, the next step is to explore safely the reasons driving different stances.
To be clear, the idea isn’t to get to consensus. It’s to make it safe to dissent.
If people are forced to vote or make a decision, then if they say they support it, they will want to be consistent with that choice. If they really don’t support it, then they have the opportunity to say so, safely, even anonymously at first.
It may be that someone silently votes against the idea and then doesn’t provide reasoning or stand behind their vote. What then? How do we discern the mischievous or adversarial from the genuine concern?
You have to build a culture where dissent is welcomed and rewarded. If people know they’ll be listened to and respected, even rewarded for speaking up, they are more likely to do it.
It may be that there are numerous ‘nos’ with good arguments. If they can’t persuade the proposer, then you can press ahead. People can ‘complain and commit.’ People will buy in once they’ve had the chance to weigh in, even if the decision ultimately goes against their stance.
How to turn silence into engagement
Here are some tips to help you farm for dissent and create a culture of debate in your organisation.
Give people time to respond. Nature abhors a vacuum, and most groups abhor extended silence.
If nothing is coming, prompt for dissent. Maybe throw out a devil’s advocate position and see if anyone speaks up.
If you still can’t get anyone to speak up, ask for a vote. This could be a show of thumbs, gladiator-style, or you could dot vote or run a lightweight secret ballot.
If you have unanimous support, great! Move on.
If not, encourage people to speak up with their nos. Praise anyone who does.
Decide what’s next and be clear with the group as to what next steps will be.
Takeaway
Silence is not agreement. It’s an opportunity to farm for dissent. If you can turn passive nods into active dialogue, you will unearth better ideas and drive better outcomes.