Does It Pay To Listen To Your Naysayers?
The Medieval Court was a complex place. The extended household of the King or Queen was where the favoured few would gather in the hope of political and financial gain. It was where things happened in the day and the full court could extend to thousands of people. It was in Court that fashions and musical and literal trends would first be heard and, on approval of the most powerful Courtiers, launched upon the rest of the World.
There were many roles, both formal and informal, in Court. Some of these roles still exist today. There was a Confessor and a Court Falconer. There was also a Groom of The Stool, a rather strange role which carried the benefit of regular moments of great intimacy with the King. It no longer exists, so far as we know.
The more enlightened rulers understood the dynamics of Court. They understood the intense politics and the tendency towards falseness and sycophancy. For this reason the role of Naysayer was considered very important. The Naysayer was an unofficial role which nonetheless carried significant rewards, not least the possibility of the attention and approval of those in power. The role was essentially to look at proposals from a negative point of view and present the downside. Often the Naysayer would need to have the strength to take a position opposing the view of those in power.
The Jester was the only Courtier who could overtly insult the Royal Family. In reality this would take the form of gentle jibing and the Jester would have to be no fool to avoid the thin line between japery and offense.
The Naysayer would also have to be very aware of politics and the intricacies of court relationships, although there would be some defence available in a role that was so clearly defined. However, they would need to be clever rather than simply stating the opposite as the disadvantage. Once someone fell out of favour in Court there was no easy way back and it was often safer to disappear and keep a low profile.
These days the term naysayer carries negative connotations. Having someone who is almost universally negative in your team is draining and unpleasant. However, it would be a foolish leader who ignored all dissent. There is a huge amount of creative energy in dissent, particularly when it comes from people who can also be supportive. Surrounding yourself with sycophants and people who will unquestioningly toe the line to your every suggestion is a sure way of piloting your movement into obscurity.
What do you think? Do you dismiss the naysayers?
James
James Coakes is the MD of team building events company, Progressive Resources, and Medieval enthusiast.
About Special GuestBirds on the Blog welcomes Guest Bloggers of all abilities, if you have something to say and you wish to share it with us - get in touch
View all posts by Special Guest →
16 Responses to Does It Pay To Listen To Your Naysayers?
All that jazz – All in A Day
Review of: Cousin Alice Jazz Music by Cousin Alice: Elaine Sturgess Reviewed by: Elaine Sturgess Rating: 5 On January 21, 2012 Last modified: January 30, 2012 Summary: What makes Alice so distinctive is her wonderfully smokey voice, a quality that furniture designer William Yeoward found so arresting at a concert she was performing for the [...]
Pingback: Tweets that mention Does It Pay To Listen To Your Naysayers? | Birds on the Blog -- Topsy.com
I feel VERY strongly that there is a role for Devil’s Advocate in Government – someone whose job it is to look at proposals or actions and argue the case against them. Far too many sycophants get things running which only later clearly have huge downsides.
I’m loving the idea of someone applying for the job of Groom of the Stool. Just imagine if someone thought it was something to do with chairs… (I’m now imagining Mr Bean at the audition).
Groom of The Stool is a role that should be reinstated forthwith.
You had me very confused there for a moment, Morag. I’m guessing you were thinking of the Rowan Atkinson character, and my mind was wandering a very different path with the Sean Bean….
ROFLMAO Ann. I’m afraid Sean Bean was very far from my mind. I have to admit to a “background” in stool management, as my husband and I were both committee members for a support charity called the Red Lion Group, for people who have had ileo-anal pouch surgery. I well recall the dinner parties (pre-kids) when someone would phone for advice and our poor guests would sit there horrified, spoon poised over dessert, as one or other of us would get into a discussion about the state of their stools.
Ooh, I see I’m now automatically Morag Gaherty. I think that’s the fault of Graham, when I posted on his blog and it wanted my Facebook identity…
I’m not sure what happened to my picture. It shows up when I’m typing, but disappears when I post. Ah well…
Well, it is here when I read the post, Ann.
The Naysayer should be making a comeback James, to help keep things ‘real’.
There is a real danger in surrounding yourself with people who say yes just to please you, I just try and surround myself with bright, intelligent women and they rarely say yes just for the sake of it.
You make a very good case, James, I would just add that it doesn’t just apply to team situations.
While I’ve been working on short stories and novel-in-progress I have discovered that it can be really difficult to find people who can criticise effectively. Too many people feel the need to be nice, and that doesn’t help me improve what I’m doing at all. So when I find someone who takes me at my word when I ask them to be brutal, I cherish them
Not that I always believe them, of course, except when they are being kind
It is about that balance though – support plus real criticism.
I suppose we are all going to say something about the Groom of the Stool…and I would send the awful poo lady, as she is known, as our future monarch loves all that complementary therapy stuff
You think you have it bad, Ann? I am inundated with offers to help from people who actually have no intention of helping at all. They just think it’s the right thing to say, and hope fervently I won’t take them up on it.
Oh, and I’ve never offered to critique your writing, because the only thing I can do is correct spelling and grammar, with which you clearly don’t need any help. I can’t offer any help with story arcs, dialogue or anything else. I can write my own stuff, but not assess anyone else’s. If I could, I would have offered (and would be brutal!). Sorry.
When I’m tired my typos get worse, but mostly I’m okay with grammar. Although my American friends seem to think I use commas too often.
I find I learn a lot from critiquing other people’s writing. I don’t expect to find everything, but I often can see problems in other people’s stories that are issues I’ve worked on, and I’m sure it works the other way. I used to be appalling at beginnings and endings and structure, but have improved a lot. Now it’s just the middle…
Americans? What the hell do they know?!
When I’m tired my typos get worse, but mostly I’m okay with grammar. Although my American friends seem to think I use commas too often.
I find I learn a lot from critiquing other people’s writing. I don’t expect to find everything, but I often can see problems in other people’s stories that are issues I’ve worked on, and I’m sure it works the other way. I used to be appalling at beginnings and endings and structure, but have improved a lot. Now it’s just the middle…
Hi James
Seems your blog got inadvertently hijacked while your attention was elsewhere
I believe that, in team situations, it would be good to employ something like Mr de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats.
I came across it some time ago (unfortunately since less involved with the corporate arena and running/ managing/ training my own team[s]) and am no expert on applying this to others by any means but the approach and its track record of success, have an undeniable appeal to me, especially in so called ‘committee’ situations…
Take personalities and personal preferential behaviour out of the equation and get everyone to have a bash at addressing one thing at a time about the issue at hand:
Separate out emotion, logic, data, creativity and so on.
A great benefit is that it also allows each individual to SWITCH his/ her stance/ opinion/ etc. without any loss of face and with genuine contribution to the outcome.
Twitter: comfort_selling
I did consider whether to include The Groom of The Stool when I wrote the article but between my admittedly childish sense of humour and a suspicion that it would be the sticky bit in the article (yuk) I found it too good to omit. It’s hard to believe but I suppose that the attention of a King was so hard to get that people would consider anything. It takes sycophancy to new levels though.
Back to business though; any team needs its naysayer, and I agree with Linda that De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats is a relevant resource, but it’s more so where the leader promotes a sense of thrall around him or her. That can allow a potentially very dangerous situation to evolve where good judgement can disappear.