by Patrick Farrell

You might be the Smartest One in the Room. However, not only does it not matter to a group’s performance who, if anyone, is the SOiTR, but the competition to prove who is, can be destructive to the group’s effectiveness.

It doesn’t matter who is SOiTR.

It doesn’t matter who, if anyone, holds the title of SOiTR. Effective working groups gather a diverse membership and put those diverse perspectives to work to make recommendations or decisions, given the groups charge.  Experience and expertise will vary across members of the group, and all members should expect to contribute what they have in that regard, recognizing theirs is not the only expertise and experience that is relevant. What “smart” means will vary depending on the topic, and may incorporate biases based on a person’s background or identity. Further, “smart” is often considered a reason why one person’s views should carry more weight than others.

The competition to identify SOiTR is counterproductive.

I see a corrosive effect of allowing the SOiTR competition to unfold in a committee or working group. In my experience, the SOiTR competition can begin even before a working group first meets. It may be exhibited by those who feel they are likely to be the SOiTR being inflexible around meeting times or places or conditions. The intention seems to be to clarify a hierarchy even before a conversation begins. That can continue in obvious and non-obvious ways—who sits where, who talks first, who sets or approves a tentative agenda…the list can go on. Some folks profess to only want to be efficient and not waste time. For them, a starting point is what they might suggest is known and agreed-upon, even if it is neither. Though the behavior may be evident to everyone else, those most involved may not see it, thus confronting them after-the-fact may only result in defensive and obstructive responses.

How can we prevent SOiTR behavior?

If we want to avoid SOiTR behavior and we need to anticipate, and act. A proactive organizer can frame the work to be done and suggest a process for doing it even before a group meets—subject to agreement or change once the group gets together. If you are the organizer/chair for the group, you can suggest a range of processes that will make the group work effectively, and make SOiTR behavior more difficult. This framing of how the group will do its work very early sets a basis for the group, and that early framing can be powerful in implicitly setting behavioral expectations.

How might we do this in practice? It sounds like 3^rd grade, but at the outset, we agree everyone should feel free to raise issues and weigh in on key issues, not only by volunteering their thoughts,  but by deliberately going around the room in seating order (or anything else you like) for comment. One approach might be to start a discussion of a new topic with a quick ‘round the room, everyone contributes about hopes and concerns on the issue. Then invite a free-flowing discussion. Close with another ‘round the room on new insights, or remaining concerns.

Agree on how the group will work before issues arise.

We might start the group’s work with agreement on how we will work; how will discussion go (see above), how will new ideas surface, how will you gather views from folks not in the room, and how will decisions be made. Not only is establishing these processes important, but the doing itself sets a model of how the group will work. Engaged groups will understand that not everyone will agree on key issues, yet the group may be expected to deliver a single recommendation. Agreeing on how to best get to that point is important to establish up-front. If you are the chair, you may need to be a little insistent at first, as some folks are used to talking first, not being questioned, and finding their ideas elevated among others. Quieter colleagues may be accustomed to not talking, or waiting to see how their ideas will be received. Everyone will need to adjust to a new dynamic.

Join in or opt out.

In my experience many SOiTR folks will appreciate that with agreed-upon processes in place, the venue is not competitive, and they will participate in the group in a collaborative way.  If some feel uncomfortable with the shift in dynamic, they might eventually opt out. While their opting out is not ideal, it is preferable to derailing an otherwise productive and inclusive group.

Are you the SOiTR? Neither having a SOiTR, nor the dynamic of establishing who is the SOiTR is helpful to group performance. We can avoid a destructive competition for power by the early establishment of group norms around visibility, voice, and appreciation.