Consensus Challenges: Defining Respect

This is the continuation of a blog series started June 7 in which I'm addressing a number of issues in consensus. Today's topic is Defining Respect.

I. When do you know enough to act? [posted June 7]
II. Closing the deal [posted June 10]
III. Wordsmithing in plenary [posted June 16]
IV. Redirecting competition [posted June 23]
V. Bridging disparate views [posted July 5]
VI. Harvesting partial product [posted July 20]
VII. When to be formal [posted July 29]
VIII. Harnessing brainstorms [posted Aug 10]
IX. Coping with blocking energy [posted Aug 19]
X. Defining respect
XI. Balancing voices
XII. Knowing when to accelerate and when to brake
XIII. Knowing when to labor and when to let go
XIV. Accountability

• • •

It's a relatively simple step to get groups to agree that extending respect to one another is a common value. But what does it mean?

This may be trickier than first appears, because respect can mean widely different things to different people and it's dangerous to assume that everyone is looking for the same "respectful" things as you. The default for most of us is that we will offer others what we want for ourselves, and that may have no relationship to what the other person finds respectful!

Here's a sampling of some of the behaviors that translate to respect for people—note that some of these are mutually exclusive:
—Honesty
—Not embarrassing you in public
—Giving you critical feedback in the way you prefer to receive it
—Giving you uninterrupted air time when you speak
—Saying something appreciative before something critical
—Not making jokes about your behavior
—Not using profanity
—Dressing nicely when company comes
—Never raising your voice
—Keeping agreements
—Assuming that you've done what you've agreed to do
—Inquiring how you're doing when you've been struggling
—Noticing when you do something for others that's above and beyond what you've agreed to do
—Not having to repeat requests (because others cared enough about you to hear it accurately the first time)
—Cutting you some slack when you occasionally fall short on completing an assignment on time 

In general the hardest dynamic to navigate safely is when two people want diametrically opposite things—then the real fun begins. It's one thing to be accused of being disrespectful when you've been unmindful; it's all together different when you were consciously trying to be respectful and are accused of being purposefully disrespectful. That's when you can hear fragments of the national anthem in the background ("… and the rockets red glare, and bombs bursting in air…")

With this potential in mind, I suggest listening instead to the lyrics of Aretha Franklin: "R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means it to me."

As if that's not complicated enough, it can get worse. People's answers (about what indicates respect to them) can vary depending on circumstances—who's in the room, how recently they've eaten, whether there are unresolved trust issues with the speaker, whether it's morning or evening, how recently they've had sex, etc. While it may be borderline heroic to attempt to memorize everyone's preferences regarding respect—especially if your group is large—you can remember to ask when you're unsure of your footing. And almost everyone finds being asked what they want to be respectful—even if they're unsure of their answer.

Switching perspectives, there is another important angle on the question of respect: what constitutes respect for the group? For the most part this is viewed as following the group norms or agreements about appropriate behavior. This, of course, comes in many flavors:
o  Doing the work you agreed to do in a timely way and to a reasonable standard of quality.
o  Being appropriately self-disciplined in meetings (Hint: what's wanted in plenary is not the same as in informal conversation, on the phone, or at the dinner table).
o  Following group guidelines about how to give critical feedback to one another.
o  Doing your homework about topics before the meeting at which it will be discussed.
o  Making a good faith effort to resolve tensions directly with people you're struggling with.
o  Listening fully to what others have to say and seriously considering it—especially when their views are different than yours.
o  Doing your best to have your children and pets operate within group-established boundaries of acceptable behavior.
o  Coming across as genuinely contrite when you fuck up.

I point this out because it's not uncommon for problems with what is viewed as inappropriate behavior to carry two components: a) the incident itself; and b) the sense that you've let the group down, and acted selfishly or immaturely. It's a double wound, and if there are two cuts, then both need to be cleansed before the healing can begin.

Horseshoes, Hand Grenades,… and Meetings?

How close to starting meetings on time is considered "on time" in your group? In short, what's close enough? For commercial airlines, if you depart or arrive within 15 minutes of the posted schedule, it counts as "on time." Is that good enough in your group?

It turns out that the answer varies widely group to group. Worse, if you randomly poll members of the same group about: a) the group's punctuality; and b) how members feel about it, I've found that both answers can vary widely. In general, those who are habitually slow to arrive tend to be equally slow to perceive the issue (rather like less-than-fastidious cleaners who never see the dirt on the kitchen floor). The long-suffering on-timers face a Hobson's choice of: a) waiting patiently on the pleasure of the tardy; or b) making a stink about it and running the risk of being labeled anal, control freaks, or the Clock Gestapo. In consequence, most groups never talk about timeliness as a value or a behavior norm. They just roll the dice and hope for the best. While meeting punctuality doesn't tend to be any group's #1 issue—and some groups function fine without any explicit agreements—it's more of an issue than many realize, and thus is a worthy subject for today's ruminations.

As you might guess, issues around punctuality can easily lead to low-grade tension that undercuts trust and good will—even before you've launched into the first agenda topic! To be sure, there are subtleties. No one (or few, at any rate) would argue that it's appropriate to chastise folks who sit down 43 seconds after the scheduled start time. On the other hand, for every 12 people waiting for latecomers, the cumulative cost to the group is one hour every five minutes. Delays get expensive in a hurry! However, absent any agreement about what's acceptable, individuals are free to apply their own standard of punctuality and this can inadvertently lead to people fuming about others having a violated a standard that has never been articulated. When you toss in the additional complication that member's watches are never synchronized, it can get ugly.

And it's worse than that. How about the person who arrives at the last second and then tells the group to go ahead and start while they lurk in the next room making tea? In the tea drinker's mind, they're on time. But to someone who is wanting everyone in the room to share a sensitive opening statement, the meeting is effectively delayed.

Another complicating factor in this genre is hand work. Under what conditions, if any, is it acceptable that people do hand work during meetings? For those whose dominant channel of input is visual, hand work can be a distraction. For those who are more aural, this doesn't tend to be the same issue (though it can appear to be: consider how it may land for a visual person who is telling a heart-rending story while an aural person listens and simultaneously shells peas). While most groups find it easy to agree that members should offer each other respectful attention in meetings, it's not so simple defining what constitutes "respectful."

The answer here, I think, is that group's need to talk about punctuality (how close is "on time") and also need to have a way to discuss tensions (of any kind), so that awkwardness around someone being perceived to fall short in their responsibilities as a group member can be dealt with directly and with compassion—not to punish, but to clear the air as a prophylactic against distortion when the heavy lifting is attempted on more weighty topics.

I bring this up because meetings are an important aspect of the group's life, and I'm all in favor of people having the time of their life at them—not just sitting around watching the clock, waiting for life to happen.