The Arbitrated Concussions

Human brain is such a mysterious thing. Even though everybody has and uses it, it behaves way more than what we call “multiple ways”. In a single individual itself, there are many permutations available for the brain to process artefacts. An IT professional is supposed to utilize this weirdo more than anything with an exception to fingers. It takes years of experience to set your brain to stand up to what you do. The mental acuity of the brain enhances every passing moment and that is why we think about the rationale around a problem and suggest solutions, or thoughts. The quicker the rational development, the faster comes the solution. I have often been part of discussions where individuals gather to discuss and seek solutions for a problem which propelled the duration and count rocketing sky-high, thanks to the pandemic. The problem might fall on either end of severity which decides the elongation and reach of the discussion and its audience respectively.?

It is a meeting etiquette that whoever is invited for the discussion, should have spent time researching and preparing his/her thoughts. The thoughts may be debatable. But the invitees definitely have something in their mind to contribute, that may be taken into consideration or to be left out, but never to be ignored. This consideration or omittance or ignorance all comes out from the situations where we listen. It is just a matter of time when these situations turn out to be predicaments.

Every discussion has that one guy who is meant to be the mediator. In other words he/she is the CPU of the discussion. He should hear, listen, argue to all the data that are flowing over the discussion, make necessary requests and respond timely to all, in order to process the data to be the information. Yes, the host who seeks a solution should be all ears. Instead of lending ears, when he starts pouring words over words, it's the concussion. Of Course, everybody is free to seek answers for whatever doubts they have in their minds regarding the subject, but it should, rather, be put in only after hearing out what others have to say.?

I have often seen and, at times, experienced situations where someone, before listening to what others have to say, starts putting in inputs which eventually sabotages the discussion agenda. Some points are meant to be absorbed. Yes, there should never be arguments for each and every point that are put in. No matter how junior or how late the attendees had been into the team, a point they put in always has something to be considered or corrected with due respect. It is not because they had already "researched" about these before putting it in, but everybody's perception of a problem differs and it matters. When these mediators cut in between what people are offering, they not only restrict the points to be put in, but also terminate the sparks that this input could trigger in others. During the discussion, when a person repeatedly asks "May I" or "Let me finish", it is the indication that they think they have some crux on the subject.

When the gush doesn't cease and mediators’ cut in gets frequent, others are compelled to cut in between as well, as it turns to be a necessity rather than the process. This would "promote" the discussion from chaos to catastrophe.

Some queries are meant for a particular person who is available to answer and if someone points at somebody when a question is asked, let that somebody answer the same. If you have something in mind that you think may help the situation, wait for the time to make the bang. Let the person who was pointed to finish, if these two guys have some debates, let them finish. Stepping in between before this concludes would be as fatal as a stillborn. These would not only disrupt the flow of discussions but also emulates the levels of concussions. No one will have anything to put in thereafter.

As in medical terms concussions have side effects, discussions suffer the same too. It is admissible and evident that a sub-group among the members already had a prep discussion which yielded four or five points to be noted. These arbitrated concussions would outlive those, leaving the members oblivious to those yielded points concluded in their prep discussion. Catastrophe again.!

A discussion is fruitful only if we have a final word upon which every single member agrees without hesitation and frustration. Not when everybody is confused, lost what they have prepared, and ultimately silenced.!