The Reedemer
A lot of theory with regards to how to talk within an executive meeting is based on highly logical, strategic communication. People will provide their insights on making sure you say the right thing, are to the point, get the audience to respect you.
Something that is really not talked about which I have seen time and time again is for want of a better phrase “the Redeemer approach”.
This is where one of the people in the meeting say something that is offensive.
Now I mean really offensive. This might be extremely aggressive, offensive language or ad hominem against you or someone else. Something that you just would not expect or have heard in a professional environment.
Unfortunately this is behaviour that is out there.
It does happen and no, it doesn’t get reported.
The other senior people in that meeting will say things like “well you know they might be blunt, but they get results”, “yes they are a bit intense” or perhaps “I don’t think they actually meant it like that”. If you raise it as an issue (however valid) you will not get a pat on the back. You may even get the “well we wanted to know if you are a team player” i.e. it was all just a test to see if you could be trusted. Often the person that uses this approach is working closely with another person in the meeting (perhaps a sponsor).
The sponsor will talk to attendees of the meeting afterwards:
“Well, he had to say that to check that things were being done.”
“He was just making sure people understood the seriousness of it.”
“Well, he showed that guy obviously didn't know what he was talking about.”
The important thing is that the sponsor is rewriting the meaning of the event.
The original event might have been:
Someone made an aggressive or offensive statement in a meeting.
But afterwards the story becomes:
A strong leader challenged someone who wasn't performing.
Or:
An experienced executive exposed a weakness in someone's argument.
Or:
Someone had to be tough because the situation required it.
And now the person who was targeted isn't objecting to inappropriate behaviour anymore. They're apparently objecting to leadership, accountability, or getting results.
That's a very powerful mechanism because the person using the Redeemer Approach doesn't actually have to defend themselves. Someone else does the narrative management for them and that behaviour is pushed to be more acceptable. The target of this approach sees that there is absolutely no accountability for that behaviour.
I call it the Redeemer approach because it is a highly effective way of someone:
- De-railing your current progress and thought processes (this is what you used to happen in the game, when you had to restart).
- Making you feel bad.
- In theory risking a lot but as I’ve mentioned they manage the risk of this as much as possible.
Point 1 is a way in which they use their tactic. You are instantly distracted due to the hostility. You don’t actually communicate whatever it was you were going to communicate. You feel like you are in a surreal world where all rules of normal professional communication have gone out the window. Fight or flight, you are pushed into flight mode.
Point 2 obviously you will feel bad, you are essentially doing your job, then becoming the victim of bullying and probably have no way of responding to it without it reflecting badly on you.
Point 3 is a bit of a perception thing. Usually (as with all bullies) the people that employ this trick are confident that they wont get caught. The people in the room will all have vested interests in not reporting this sort of behaviour and this is actually quite key in when this behaviour will occur. If you work for a rival consultancy, are perhaps on a contract rather than being a permanent employee, you work for another team within the organisation all of these things can contribute to being on the end of this sort of behaviour.
Now, we understand that this can happen, we understand why they want to do it, we understand the rules of play.
First, we have to look at this behaviour for what it is. Bullying behaviour that is based on cowardice and lack of capacity to actually discuss or defend their point. Now, we should also consider that this may not even be related to anything you have said. The magician’s trick of misdirection is another reason for someone to use this approach. For example there could be a terrible issue with another supplier that the specific person has invested in and they want to keep attention away from it. By causing a fuss they can turn attention away from their own issues. “Look it’s only 5 million overspend, I’m more worried about that idiot not being able to answer simple questions!”.
So, just like a barking dog behind a gate that can’t actually get to you (and even if it could it wouldn’t), you have to treat it in the same way. They are highly unlikely to physically attack you. That crosses the line for the other attendees and, to be honest is unlikely to be something a coward is going to do.
Now honestly, we have to deal with the background of this situation. Ask yourself is this a one off situation? Or am I going to have to do this again and again.
If this is a one off use the following approach.
Keep calm. Just think about the barking dog, it’s just noise.
Pause, make it a specific pause. You want everyone to think about what was just said. This is a classic move in terms of dealing with hostility, it also shows that you are remaining calm.
When you have zero cover and the attack is completely unhinged, stop playing defence entirely. You don't get angry, but you stop pretending the presentation is happening.
Address the most senior decision-maker (not the person launching the attack) and put the burden of the room right back on them:
"I’m here to work through the agenda I’m not going to sit here while [Name] hurls profanity and personal insults. Let me know if you’d like to reschedule this or if you want to work through the agenda items offline."
By forcing the senior leader to explicitly choose between managing the meeting or endorsing the abuse, you refuse to let them rewrite the narrative later. You don't absorb the blast, you hand the payload back to the room.
For the more repeat offense we have to use a different approach, which we will cover later.
