Some people may disagree with me, but I believe we are all potential leaders. Whether or not it is in the job description, sooner or later we all find ourselves in a situation where we can – and do – influence others, even though we may be unconscious of it at the moment it occurs. It is often in the informal sense of leadership that we might do the most damage or, conversely, choose to do the most good. The following is the true case of ‘Superman’ vs. ‘Toxicman’.

Early in my career I joined what turned out to be a highly dysfunctional team. It was a new experience for me, and it completely threw me off. The work itself was largely enjoyable, interesting and rewarding. The official team leader appeared approachable and open to input. The people were skilled and knowledgeable, some extremely so. Yet, I dreaded our weekly team meetings almost from the outset and, within a short time, I also learned to dread any and all encounters with most team members. This team had succumbed to the influence of one overwhelmingly negative and confrontational person … ‘Toxicman’.

You have likely met a person like ‘Toxicman’. He enters the room with his permanent scowl of doom, and the energy and conversation drain away like a two dollar pint at happy hour. He always has a complaint about the way he is being treated by the organization. His work load is too great, leadership is incompetent, colleagues are sub-standard and none of the plans will ever work. Even in his absence, conversations are drawn to his latest negative antics. Toxicman is a walking dose of lethal poison and he seems bent on destruction.

In our case, there had apparently been numerous futile complaints over the years and now it seemed most people had accepted that the official leader was powerless in the face of such a viral force. But I noticed that one person on our team of 10, I’ll call him ‘Superman’, continued to interact in a meaningful way with Toxicman. I occasionally saw them share a laugh in the hall. They even shared an office (I imagined that would be a special hell). Superman managed to maintain a positive attitude and a good relationship with a very difficult individual. I had to ask him what was going on, and he shared these insights:
• Toxicman was gifted in his area of expertise, but not so generously endowed with patience. This was aggravated by a medical condition which he struggled to control and sometimes resulted in outbursts over the slightest thing. Armed with this knowledge and empathy, Superman made it clear to Toxicman that he wouldn’t engage in the outbursts. He’d engage only while Toxicman had his demons under control.
• Toxicman rarely felt listened to or otherwise validated by the team. Superman practiced enquiry and active listening so Toxicman felt heard and validated. Superman in fact managed to tap into Toxicman’s desire to contribute.
• Superman knew he couldn’t fight Toxicman and win. He took it on as a personal challenge to manage the only thing he could control: his own attitude. And he was winning 90% of the time.
• Superman made it his rule not to engage in negative conversations about Toxicman. He refused to be ‘carrier’. At most, he would acknowledge the challenge, and then attempt to bring things back to the positive.

I learned a lot from Superman that day. I adopted his strategies and, perhaps not coincidentally, ended up sharing an office with Toxicman for several pretty enjoyable years. I learned a lot from Toxicman, too. He really was a gifted expert. I wish I could report that Superman and I made everything right with the team. We didn’t. But I do believe we made things much better than they might have been.

I am constantly reminded that wise leaders involve their teams in making decisions that affect them. There is tremendous value in this. Simply examining all sides of an issue with the input of a diverse and talented team helps the leader make a fully informed decision. And, when the team has reached consensus on an issue, a motivated, energetic and committed workforce heads out on a path they feel they have chosen themselves.

Leaders sometimes state their intent to gain consensus on key issues but feel discouraged when considerable time is invested and the results fall short of expectations. Sometimes this happens because the principles, and the term “consensus” itself, are poorly understood.

Case in point: I recall a meeting many years ago that involved about 30 people who were, to the extreme, dedicated to achieving complete agreement on important issues. The issue I describe appears now to be quite trivial but, I must emphasize, it did not seem trivial to the participants at the time. The issue (are you ready?): “Should a popular and valued staff member be allowed to have her dog at work when policy clearly forbade it?” By the way, this was not a “working dog” but an ordinary pet.

Now, there was a “history” that had led to the policy in the first place and I won’t go into that. Also, the dogs of several staff present at the meeting had effectively been banned from the premises. On the other side were good arguments why this particular dog and this valued person should be granted exceptional status. The discussion lasted well over three hours while the moderator tried to get complete agreement from 30 people among several options: the policy stays and the dog goes, or; the policy goes and the dog stays, or; the policy stays and an exception made. In the end, fatigue spoke louder than reason. Complete agreement was signaled by way of a 30-0 vote. The final decision: uphold the policy with no exceptions but henceforth recognize the dog in question as “a cat” (there being no policy banning cats). I don’t recall the dog’s reaction.

Few people would consider this a good decision, or even a good process, but I think there are two important lessons in this tale.

The first is that, no matter how trivial an issue appears, it is very likely quite important to more than one person. People discussed this, heatedly at times, for three hours! Your handling of it will send a clear message about how you regard the values of those involved. Dismiss it at your peril.

The second is that consensus does not mean complete agreement. While many people might consider complete agreement to be a noble target, it is rarely achieved and can lead to bizarre outcomes. Some would argue that complete agreement may be a sign that the team lacks the necessary diversity of opinions and perspectives (and in the current example, “connection to reality”) to be really effective. So what do we strive for?

How about true consensus? Consensus is not unanimous agreement. I prefer to think of it as a process that involves all the people who are affected by the decision, and leads to a decision that all people can support. In consensus, the decision may not be my first choice, and I never lose face by being coerced into saying that it is. I just agree that:
• I have said my piece and I feel “heard”.
• It is the best solution for the team and I can live with it.
• I’ll try and make it work, rather than sabotage it.

Consensus is not a majority vote or an autocratic decision. It shouldn’t be a bargaining process, and it needn’t be unanimous. To set that expectation is unrealistic and counterproductive. Rather, consensus is a way to increase respect, build commitment and build deep understanding of the issues, the business and the team members themselves.

I had one of those conversations today. You may have had one like this. It started out when a potential client asked a simple question that I really connected with. Before I knew it, I was knee-deep in the topic and, I must say, I was becoming increasingly impressed with my ability to wade through the muddy waters toward the high ground of enlightenment. Fortunately, this was a face-to-face conversation, because at some point it dawned on me that I was alone by the time I approached the far shore. My partner in conversation appeared to be slipping out of consciousness. I had ignored some key rules of “engagement” and now we might both pay the price.

I know I’m not the only one who has done this. During the past few years, dozens of clients have expressed the desire to “engage” people; leaders want to engage their teams, sales managers want to engage potential customers, and governments wish to engage the public, stakeholders and partners. The reasons are many. While engaged, people absorb concepts, make connections and contribute ideas. The organization benefits from the increased brainpower itself, but also from increased connection and commitment toward the entity they are collectively building.

Engagement can be understood with some basic brain physiology. When you are conscious, your brain can be in one of two states, “alpha” or “beta”, depending on its energy levels. Conveniently, there is also a switch called the “reticular activating system”. When the woman in my story started to drift, her brain was slipping into alpha, just as your computer will do if you don’t touch the keys for a while. Now, alpha is fine for mundane tasks, but I was hoping to make an impact with my ideas, perhaps even make a sale. When I realized what was happening, I paused, used her name and asked her a question about her experience with the topic. This prompted the reticular activating system, which jolted her brain back into beta state. Her brain was now meeting the challenge of functioning at a higher level. She was re-engaged.

When you have a message to deliver or information to obtain, you can engage your communications partners by getting them into beta and keeping them there with some of the following activators:
1. Use their names.
2. Ask questions and get them speaking. (Research has shown that when a person has spoken once in a meeting, they are much more willing to speak subsequent times.)
3. Present problems for them to help solve.
4. Change your voice tone or volume.
5. Using eye-catching visuals and colours in presentations.
6. Move.
7. Change the environment or the pace (e.g., fresh air).

Every successful partnership, relationship or simple conversation depends on one key element: the complete intellectual and emotional engagement of all the parties concerned. Approach it deliberately and you can achieve high engagement with all of your communications partners.