Well, then, at least now you can recognize the tactics, and perhaps enjoy being steamrolled by them.
The point is, these tactics are used -- you undoubtedly recognize times where you've been subjected to it yourself. What's more, this technique is used in such a way that the battle has to be fought on the terms of the person using this technique -- they called the meeting, and you're merely an attendee.
That being the case, you're going to have to deal with the technique as it's used. What the list does not mention is the context in which this technique is used. Here are a few highlights:
1. The other side is organized. The people calling the meeting already know what they're after, and it's then just a matter of gaining concensus.
2. Most most of the people attending the meeting are not organized. They're showing up cold, as it were -- which is what this technique is hoping for.
3. Because people are showing up cold, they tend also to lack information. The moderator thus controls what the attendees do, and do not, know about the topic at hand.
4. Most of the people attending the meeting are there "with an open mind," and they're operating on the assumption that everyone present is, too, and that everyone is there in good faith. (They're wrong, though: see #1)
5. The meeting agenda has been set, and it's geared to further the hidden agenda of those who called it. The moderator of the meeting has the power to control and limit discussion, and will do so.
6. Very often, the meeting itself is meaningless: the decision that is allegedly to be made at the meeting, has already been made elsewhere. The purpose of the meeting, therefore, is primarily to legitimize the decision through a process of "public involvement."
Those are some of the conditions under which this technique works. And they all suggest counter-tactics.
The primary counter-tactic is to defeat the moderator. Not directly, of course, but by subverting the agenda.
For example, to counter #6 requires you to play a role in the real decision process. Or, if you cannot, then you need to make it clear that the meeting is actually meaningless.
The technique of isolation (mentioned above) is designed to address this counter-tactic, which is why you need to be organized (i.e., several of you, sitting throughout the room, not in a group), informed, and most important of all, you must come across as calm and reasonable. (Dress nicely. Comb your hair. Let the best speaker among you do most of the talking, and rise in support of him or her.)
The best approach is not immediate direct confrontation, but instead that of "embarrassing questions," perhaps using confessions of personal ignorance (with which other folks will sympathize). Make the moderator go into details. Have your partners ask for further clarification.
It's also a good idea to challenge the process -- again perhaps introduced in terms of personal ignorance. "Can you explain this? I don't quite understand how this will actually help solve the problem -- how will we know if this group agrees with that one, and how do we resolve those differences....?"
The most important thing is to discover, and make clear, the underlying agenda for the meeting. "What are we really trying to do here? What will be the result of this meeting? Does what we're doing really matter?" This should be done early -- and, if successful, you'll have gained control of the agenda.
There's nothing dishonest about any of this.
Several friends and I attended the "hearing," scattered ourselves throughout the audience and challenged everything said.
Unfortunately, this only resulted in another "hearing" because of the issues raised. The subsequent "hearing" was tightly controlled, requiring that any questions be submitted in writing beforehand. Naturally, the questions were hand-picked by the EPA goon, and the new regulations were subsequently adopted.
The point is that we knew we were being Delphied and resisted. If more people were aware of the technique, we'd be more successful fighting it off.
Good post, Laz.