The Antidote to Poisonous People: Anna

from the poisonous people article:

"Anna knows more about every subject than everyone else on the team put together---at least, she thinks she does. No matter what you say, she'll correct you; no matter what you know, she knows better. Annas are pretty easy to spot: if you keep track in team meetings of how often people interrupt one another, her score is usually higher than everyone else's put together."

The more familiar term for the all the Annas in the world are called the "know-it-alls".

Analysis (Interruption):
One problem that occurs far too often is the passive behavior from the rest of the group. When Anna interrupts, two common reactions to that follow this behavior are: i) The person that was speaking stops, allowing Anna to speak "out-of-courtesy" ii) the rest of the group stays silent, hoping that the previous speaker will repeat their point or that the interruption would unlikely happen again and let it go.

If this is the case, then this automatically sends Anna the message that her behavior is allowed. The problem that I found personally from encountering a few Anna's myself is that every member of the group believes far too often of the "out-of-courtesy" concept. This system implies wishful thinking in that being courteous will not make you the bad guy and/or will hopefully set an example for everyone else.

Most likely, Anna feels the need to interrupt because she feels that her point is more important than the current issue.

Antidote (Interruption):
The key here is developing a speech scheduler. This does not mean passing around a conch shell, allowing the bearer to speak. If you've ever read the Lord of the Flies in high school, you know that although the conch symbolized order, the conch failed.

One idea that I will mention time and time again is to keep the idea of multi-dimensional thinking, more commonly known as "putting yourself in someone else's shoes"

It is possible that Anna does not see her interruption as a problem because it seems normal to her. Take the initiative to tell her that it isn't. This can be simple as saying, "Excuse me Anna, I am speaking right now and I find it rude when you interrupt." As corny as this may sound, it does accomplish one thing: It identifies Anna's interruptions as a problem.

It is also Anna to interrupt because of a sense of urgency. She may feel that her point can be valued by the group but is in fear forgetting it if she waits till the speaker is done. We see this quite often as well in the example of raising our hands in class. Sometimes you put up your hand for such a long time that you forget what you were going to say, but you know that it was a genius idea. The solution is simple. Ensure that everyone has a pen and paper. Any important notes or great ideas can be silently written and thought out. Not only does this prevent the juggling of ideas in your head, but this also enables creative critiques to be made.

Analysis (know-it-all):
Anna may think she knows everything, but the rest of her group have other ideas in mind. It is frustrating for the other group members to feel that their points are never taken seriously by Anna because she is stuck in her opinion. The negligent approach would be to label Anna's behavior as stubbornness. However, this type of labeling behavior is giving the message, "Anna's not going to budge, so let's either ignore it completely or just go her way otherwise this will never end".

Antidote (know-it-all):
This antidote is actually an expansion from a suggestion mentioned by Greg Wilson during one of his CSC301 lectures. Anna's know-it-all attitude can actually be used in a creative context. She clearly has a very strong opinion and is determined in what she believes in. Offer her the challenge of arguing the opposite side.
Anna believes that the other members of her group pose weak counter-arguments and that she will always have a stronger argument than her opposition. What better way to approach this problem then letting her battle against herself? She is so convinced that her opinion is right, but now she has to argue two sides.

One common goal that Anna may have with this mentality is the need to 'win'. However, arguing both sides, especially against herself, is an endless battle. She cannot win both sides and the thought of losing can be frustrating if this is the case. The point of this challenge is to utilize her confidence in her opinions, she may actually have some good points that the group can use.

If she steps down from the challenge, then identify that it is a sign of weakness. The way to think about this is: If she believes that she can hold a strong opinion, she should be able to hold one for the opposite side as well. If she is unable to do so, then this implies that she is not as convincing as she is claims herself to be. It shows that she is weak in terms of constructing a convincing argument and it also reduces the legitimacy and validity of her argument.