Recently, I sat through a long, boring, and frustrating meeting where the facilitator punched power for himself and one other guy there - in words that made it obvious he was unaware of others’ capabilities in this circle.
Don't get me wrong - this is a good man - and he was completely unaware of his power punches. Has it ever happened to you in a meeting?
At this session, we suffered lengthy … outmoded ideas from self-proclaimed experts, and then left the table empty-handed. On the same day, Seth Godin sat through a zoning meeting - with a different agenda but similar problems related to power.
Language subtly excludes others and wastes talent, if facilitators … 
1. Assume the offerings of one person are more valuable than offerings others in the group could contribute if given an equal chance.
2. Speak too soon as if all the best solutions draw from one or two people only in attendance.
3. Fail to ask questions that generate more current or doable tactics, when people who claim to have all the experience take over and speak authoritatively in ways that drown out other voices.
We left that meeting with a bunch of outmoded terms, rubrics that failed to use numeric measures, and huge pools of wasted time and talent – all because words were used to favor two men’s offerings only, and to exclude amazing wisdom from an entire circle of more current leaders in the area of our discussion!
While, it’s not my intention to show political problems or gender inequities this approach can create, I would like to draw on a new research study I read this morning at Science Daily that helps to explain why my meeting went so wrong.
First, a new research study shows that a person in power has often turned off the spigots to understanding or caring about the perspectives of others. It was as if this research was being played out before us, and the link between power and lack of perspective materialized in front of our eyes.
It surprised me far less when I read the study’s results that showed how people given power were three times more likely to raise personal perspectives higher, and move forward from their own vantage point, rather than adjust their plans to include other peoples’ perspectives.
Second, the study builds a strong case for applying specific strategies that will balance the problem of leaders who come pre-disposed to ignore, diminish or fail to recognize alternative viewpoints in any meeting. Can you see how this research, can help under-represented populations to enter key arenas of power?
My botched meeting highlighted our need for fresh insights from that room, while instead, we suffered constant power punches that eliminated opportunities from most voices. Do your meetings waste time and talent?
What new tactics do you envision to draw solutions from more of the talent at your table? How can a person prevent personal power that punches out alternative perspectives? What's your solution?
Comment Preview