The Church of Interruption

I've noticed in my experience that the Big Endian approach has been less successful for me in work environments. Another wrench in the system is that when you want to get things done, especially at a leadership level, you will come to realize that the whole system in this article goes out the window if people aren't honest when they don't understand something.

I'm often thinking ahead in conversations and in a company hierarchy where people some don't want to admit not knowing or not understanding, I noticed people would nod or agree, but no actions would be taken. I though about this for a while and came to the conclusion that people simply need an explanation, but don't want to admit not understanding. SO what looked like agreement was facade to hide the confusion. It took me a bit, but I learned to move away from making a statement and waiting for questions, to leading into a conclusion so that everyone has more context with which to ask questions, or feel more comfortable asking a question because "hey, I understood most of that, but he/she lost me at that point"

You're reading a lot into what was a fairly simple scenario with no mention of what the topics were. It came across as being an informal meeting with no agenda, moderator or stated outcomes.

About all we can assume from the scenario are the power dynamics. Alice spoke first which says it's either her meeting or she is the ranking person there - not Carol.

If it was a meeting to address the potential critical failure of a system that Carol is the most knowledgeable about, then yes, she should speak up. It could be potentially negligent to not do so, but most meetings are not that.

Well said. In a business context it often feels like a risk to admit that you don't know something. Because it's a competitive situation and the Prod M Lead isn't about to display ignorance to the Dev Lead who is nodding sagely like they understood all the malarkey that the Chief Architect just spewed out.

And since those two doofuses are pretending they already have a clue, the QA Lead feels even more like THEY should already have one and so on and so forth.

Switch that to a context where you're the Prod M Lead, and you're talking about the roadmap to the Sales team who are all nodding their heads like they totally get it even when they're not and you have a high potential for an unproductive or counterproductive situation.

To me, being willing to admit you don't understand, or even to ask questions as if you don't understand when you do, is a sign of leadership-- it signals that you really care about having everyone on the team clued in and able to apply themselves to the situation at hand.

Heck, it might even be useful to have a "designated doofus" in your meetings who is there specifically to watch for this behavior and ask "stupid" questions to ensure understanding by as many people as possible in that room.

No, “interrupters” do not have to be “overpowered”. They just have to be interrupted, which is something they are expecting, and will stop talking to accommodate.

The back-and-forth of a conversation (including interruptions) is a collaborative endeavor, not a “confrontation”. Something like playing improvisational music together.

If someone often interrupts but will not easily allow themselves to be interrupted, or if someone completely ignores what the other person is saying, then that is just rude, not some difference in conversational culture. That’s not what we are talking about in this discussion though.

For people in an interruption-heavy conversation culture, someone who sits back and doesn’t say anything because there is never a long pause where no one else is talking – or who doesn’t jump in and say something when the interrupter starts saying explaining something they already know, leaving the interrupter to waste their time – seems cold and distant. The non-interrupter’s silence feels judgmental and antisocial. The interrupter will often interpret the non-interrupter’s behavior as an indication that that he/she does not like the interrupter or does not want to be part of the conversation.

Often this impression of standoffishness is inaccurate, a result of cultural misunderstanding. Just like the non-interrupter’s impression that the interrupter is confrontational or rude is inaccurate, also a misunderstanding.

* * *

There are many similar kinds of cultural differences which can lead to misunderstandings.

When someone from a culture where each person gets a personal plate to eat from meets someone from a culture where everyone eats from a communal plate, each person can interpret the other’s behavior as rudeness.

When someone from a culture without much physical contact meets someone from a culture where people greet each-other with hugs or kisses, again, each can interpret the opposite behavior as rudeness.