May 3, 2006To Beer or Not to Beer?
When the counsel met to determine whether alcohol should continue to be offered at community children’s athletic events, the arguments in its favor were long on emotion and short on facts. The childrens parents told tales of the friendships they formed watching their kids play ball, and how their new friends helped them through troubled times. Those who wanted to keep the beer flowing attempted to silence those who had concerns about the legal considerations and complaints of unseemly behavior.
Those who had concerns about the beer found themselves ridiculed when they attempted to communicate their views. The “beer lobby” was much more vocal…until Jesse organized a counter-movement.
He talked to those who had not spoken at the meetings and discovered that most had concerns but were intimidated by the passion of those who did not want to hear what they had to say. Jesse reinforced their views, assured them they were not alone, and encouraged them to speak.
The next council meeting was very different from the previous ones. The aggressive members found their opposition was not willing to be silenced by pressure and emotion. They insisted on reasonable discussion and a balance of fact and emotion. Together they learned that when reasonable people do not allow the loudest among them to drown them out, they can get results and affect change.
If you find yourself intimidated by people who use emotional manipulation on you, get over it. If you calmly point out the facts of the situation and give permission for others to speak, chances are you will find support among others who want to make the decision based on logic, considered options and reason.
1 Comment »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
| TrackBack URI
You can also bookmark
this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos
This is good. Several years ago I was asked to lead a business meeting between to contentious groups who had to come to a difficult and complex series of technical agreements. To emphasize the importance of using a logical argument rather than “shouting strength” to decide the issues, I began the meeting with an arm wrestling contest. I described the first issue to be decided and asked each group to select a representative. I then had these two representatives arm wrestle right there in the meeting room to decide the outcome of that issue. Both groups cheered on their representatives and got rather boisterous. This is clearly illustrated the absurdity of the “decision by force and noise” approach that too often dominates contentious meetings. We then proceeded to use an orderly “criteria based” decision making process. Whenever the discussions started to get too heated, I asked if anyone wanted to decide by arm wrestling. They got the point and returned quickly to a rational discussion.
Comment by Lee Beaumont — May 3, 2006 @ 2:07 pm