Would be interesting to see an article about chronic non-yielders in conversation too. That's the other extreme from this, for people who deserve to be interrupted and usually it's because they don't get to the point, even when it's fairly obvious what it'll be!
I meander and don't get to the point personally for sure. Then I know people who are on the opposite side - either too quiet or "chronic non-yielders" as you stated. Even when you know they have or want to contribute to a conversation.
I'm always a little concerned by articles like this because they seem to set up the following path of events:
1) Chronic unyielder starts driving down productivity.
2) Chronic unyielder begins to notice a pattern of being interrupted by increasingly frustrated team members.
3) Chronic unyielder stumbles into validating articles like this one.
4) Chronic unyielder decides that they are surrounded by "chronic interrupters."
5) Chronic unyielder decides that team members are "being mean."
6) Chronic unyielder adopts Minden's advice of: "If people refuse to accept these reasonable requests, you can respectfully state that the conversation isn’t productive and that it would be best to talk another time."
7) Communications break down. The unyielder doesn't understand why, the balance of the team gets tired of carrying the weight.
8) ???
The writer missed a very relevant point. Some speaker speak in a way that makes it hard to determine if they are done or just made a momentary pause so the listener interrupts went they should not have.
It's important to note that being interrupted in a conversation can be caused by the speaker as well as the listener so both sides need to be examined.
5 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 30.5 ms ] threadDecent article overall.
It's important to note that being interrupted in a conversation can be caused by the speaker as well as the listener so both sides need to be examined.