What is social media after all but a lot of people chatting and wanting their conversations (or rants) overheard by near-strangers who can jump in with their reactions? Circulating junk ideas or even diatribes and personal attacks on specific individuals has become much easier to do in social media. Some companies too have been sending little notes for their e-mail or FB groups as a way of making announcements or passing bits of management wisdom (always floss before a meeting) when recipients are resting from budget preparations and call reports.
One technique in handling the barrage of opinion and verbal assaults is 鈥減assive resistance鈥 advocated by Gandhi and emulated by Martin Luther King. Lessons from this favorite tack of protest movements allow us to parry criticism. It counsels the use of an attacker鈥檚 strength and momentum to defeat him — pull when pushed and push when pulled. I used to think this was jujitsu or aikido鈥 but that鈥檚 beside the point.
Say, some travel-hungry negotiator proposes to restart stalled (or canceled) negotiations in Norway. Somebody on top thinks the process is not working because the followers on the ground don鈥檛 seem to speak Norwegian or Swedish, even when expletives have been deleted. The verbally assaulted leader responds calmly to the mob with a mild rebuke. Where鈥檚 the respect? Can the critic specify the weak points of the cessation of talks and suggest a way forward? The sloganeers (peace talk, peace talk) then have to think of something intelligent to say — but my visa has just been extended.
Such an instructive exchange shows how to overcome criticism and elicit unlikely support. The adversary is trounced and a position previously opposed then gains at least passive acceptance.
But is this really what happens in the real world of conflict? Is such a civil dialogue even possible? Are critics so easily turned to yes-men? Can boxers do cross-stitching with their gloves on?
Passive resistance as an approach may work if there is goodwill on both sides. It presumes that a critic just lacks information and is really on the lookout for what鈥檚 good for the company or country, regardless of who gets the credit. Does that sound real?
More likely, faultfinders are anxious to see their victims fail, miserably and publicly if possible, and experience surgical intrusion without anesthesia. So, in a dialogue of the deaf, the nitpicker鈥檚 reaction to a request for suggestions can take a more predictable turn: You want me to give you ideas on how to save your laughable initiative? You want to share the failure with me? Can I borrow your walking stick to hit you on the head with? I鈥檓 not here to rescue you from your usual hare-brained, half-baked schemes. Your plan really needs work. And I don鈥檛 have the time to do that for you. Trying your passive resistance on me? Forget it, buddy. Your plan is a cement boot that will drag you down a sinkhole.
While conversations in corporate corridors may not be this brutal, the feelings behind them can be. The peacemaker labors under the assumption that you can turn your adversaries into supporters with just a kind word of encouragement, and that confrontation, naked and ugly, must be avoided. We鈥檙e not even talking about politics here.
Accept this fact: there are people you can never win over (Hopefully you don鈥檛 report to them) and frontal confrontations, while they create sparks, can draw the line in the sand, if not result in a better solution — with the intervention of the boss or organized trolls.
Right after a critic fires his verbal salvo, the proponent need not meekly ask for suggestions. He can hit hard with a take-no-prisoners retort — you got a better idea, buster? Why should I even listen to a shrimp that talks?
Noisy confrontations identify the issues, sharpen arguments, and highlight obstacles. This is better than phantom consensus, followed by intrigue and backstabbing. Knowing how executives work or don鈥檛 work together guides the perceptive CEO on how to organize his company. He becomes more aware of how to get things done or, when necessary鈥 undone.
Anyway, there鈥檚 no need to react to every provocation or even what is passed off as constructive criticism, which is as yummy as saliva-dripped popcorn.
It takes two to tangle. Why not just let the trolls have their day? Indifference can be the best reaction. There is no better response than silence鈥 except in a performance rating discussion with the boss.
A. R. Samson is chair and CEO of Touch DDB.
