Have you ever looked around the room during a meeting and wondered why a particular person seems to have more influence than even the individual running the meeting? Yeah, me too. People listen when these individuals speak. The ideas they offer are adopted more often. People look to them when the issue is difficult, as if they will always have a good solution.
In the years I have been observing meeting dynamics, here are five practices that these people seem to employ in gatherings that enable them to influence others, even though they are not necessarily the one in authority. See if you agree.
First, they are prepared. They have read the pre-meeting materials. They’ve thought through the options for action in advance. They’ve considered what obstacles there might be. They’ve considered who else in the room might be of like mind and who might disagree with what they think is a reasonable solution.
Second, they are present. They are not clearing emails or responding to texts while the meeting is going on. They are attentive to others in the room, offering encouragement both verbally and non-verbally. They are actively engaged in the conversation without being overbearing. If a disagreement arises, they are careful to take stock of opposing viewpoints and then typically only offering an opinion if asked.
Third, they collaborate, but they do so carefully. Credit is not their focus. It has been their experience that there’s generally credit for everyone. They remain focused on the outcome, which generally requires a team effort, or at least team support. They’re happy to pitch in, at least within reason.
At the same time, they are circumspect about accepting leadership roles. They know that some tasks and projects take a lot more time and effort than others and they need to maintain a healthy balance, not to mention getting their other work done.
Fourth, they ask think-ahead questions. These individuals are good critical thinkers who consider the downstream consequences of decisions. As a result, they are likely to be the ones to question the group’s decision if they see a “red flag” about going forward. They do so respectfully however, with the purpose in making those stop and think about something that’s not being considered.
Fifth, they summarize the apparent consensus of the group. These individuals look for patterns and trends during group discussions. As a result, they are able to summarize where the group seems to be going before others see it. That said, they are careful not to be married to this summary, since they may have misread something. If this happens, they remain open to flexing with others’ opinions or proposals as long as these are focused on the outcome. Ultimately, they know that summarizing tends to move discussions toward decisions.
None of these practices require the leader’s authority. In fact, I have been surprised at times at how these individuals appear to be leading the meeting, in spite of someone else being officially in charge. That said, they are discreet enough to not overstep. Of course, all five of these practices require the presence of mind to use them at the right time and the self-discipline to remain focused when you’re dying to jump in rather than reserving judgment.
Now, ask yourself, “How would my authority and outcomes improved if I more actively practiced these characteristics?” Let me know in the comments below.