We are clearing out our garage this bank holiday weekend and turning up some interesting material including a photo from many years ago of a European legal team I was a part of, based in London but for a global company. There were lawyers from the United States, Germany, Greece and England all as I recall with diverse backgrounds and characters. Yet it was a great team with clear focus and no “naysayers” - which made it a pleasure to work in.
A “naysayer” is a person who habitually criticizes, objects to, or opposes something. In my experience they are anathema to a professional team because they ultimately prevent any progress and hinder development activities. These people may be acting like this because it is their nature, which is difficult enough to manage, or they could be pursuing an alternative agenda trying to undermine the team and its leadership. They are the team member who we all recognise and who will typically start their point with “Let me just play devil’s advocate here.”
Whatever their motivation, they need to be managed back into a more positive mindset or frankly must leave the team or they will bring everything down around the team’s ears. Here is an interesting Harvard Business Review Article on How to Handle the Naysayer on Your Team which recognises the benefit of opposition but says it has to be managed commenting Not only did every team have an opposer (or two), but almost every team was annoyed by the behavior, considered it unhelpful, and wished it (and the person) would go away. In some cases, reactions to the opposer were quite intense, ranging from stonewalling or the silent treatment to aggressive outbursts.
See also this Forbes post which describes a typical if rather extreme naysayer as follows: He will sit with his arms folded and jaw clenched and wince at just about every idea.Or this article which advocates helping naysayers to reform and be a “recovering naysayer” suggesting Every organization has one or two negative people. Ignoring them is not a viable option. If you have a trusting relationship with them you should be able to successfully point out their impact and help them adjust.
I am a bit sceptical about this and think as Jim Collins said in his book Good to Great you need the right people in the right seats on the bus. Whilst constructive criticism is healthy, downright opposition to every new idea really isn’t. A former partner of mine in a law firm once described the chaos in a previous law firm he worked with when they brought the wrong partner on board.
And very worryingly naysayers often seem to become leaders, rising to the top according to the New Scientist because we naturally treat them as leadersNegative, critical people often ascend to positions of leadership because their disregard for social niceties makes them seem powerful, research suggests.
This article Does Being a Naysayer Make You a More Powerful Leader? says It turns out that even though we say we want compassionate and empathetic leaders, we perceive naysayers as being more powerful than their non-critical colleagues. However, it also goes on to determine that Constant negativity and criticism causes people to view the leader as a malcontent and they eventually remove their support.
The English philosopher John Locke said New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common.
Whilst the American philosopher Ralph Waldo Emmerson advised Whatever you do you need courage. Whatever course you decide upon, there will always be someone to tell you that you are wrong.
A “naysayer” is a person who habitually criticizes, objects to, or opposes something. In my experience they are anathema to a professional team because they ultimately prevent any progress and hinder development activities. These people may be acting like this because it is their nature, which is difficult enough to manage, or they could be pursuing an alternative agenda trying to undermine the team and its leadership. They are the team member who we all recognise and who will typically start their point with “Let me just play devil’s advocate here.”
Whatever their motivation, they need to be managed back into a more positive mindset or frankly must leave the team or they will bring everything down around the team’s ears. Here is an interesting Harvard Business Review Article on How to Handle the Naysayer on Your Team which recognises the benefit of opposition but says it has to be managed commenting Not only did every team have an opposer (or two), but almost every team was annoyed by the behavior, considered it unhelpful, and wished it (and the person) would go away. In some cases, reactions to the opposer were quite intense, ranging from stonewalling or the silent treatment to aggressive outbursts.
See also this Forbes post which describes a typical if rather extreme naysayer as follows: He will sit with his arms folded and jaw clenched and wince at just about every idea.Or this article which advocates helping naysayers to reform and be a “recovering naysayer” suggesting Every organization has one or two negative people. Ignoring them is not a viable option. If you have a trusting relationship with them you should be able to successfully point out their impact and help them adjust.
I am a bit sceptical about this and think as Jim Collins said in his book Good to Great you need the right people in the right seats on the bus. Whilst constructive criticism is healthy, downright opposition to every new idea really isn’t. A former partner of mine in a law firm once described the chaos in a previous law firm he worked with when they brought the wrong partner on board.
And very worryingly naysayers often seem to become leaders, rising to the top according to the New Scientist because we naturally treat them as leadersNegative, critical people often ascend to positions of leadership because their disregard for social niceties makes them seem powerful, research suggests.
This article Does Being a Naysayer Make You a More Powerful Leader? says It turns out that even though we say we want compassionate and empathetic leaders, we perceive naysayers as being more powerful than their non-critical colleagues. However, it also goes on to determine that Constant negativity and criticism causes people to view the leader as a malcontent and they eventually remove their support.
The English philosopher John Locke said New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common.
Whilst the American philosopher Ralph Waldo Emmerson advised Whatever you do you need courage. Whatever course you decide upon, there will always be someone to tell you that you are wrong.
RSS Feed
