VIEWPOINT

By David Lengacher and John Dulin

Many of us in the operations research/management science community have had the experience and pleasure of giving presentations in front of an audience at professional conferences. In most cases audience members are very respectful, although unafraid to ask tough questions. As presenters, we usually enjoy getting these types question because: (1) it gives us the opportunity to demonstrate the depth of our knowledge, and (2) it helps other audience members better understand the rigor with which our analysis was conducted.

However, once in a while a presenter may cross paths with a harsh critic who steps over the line and ventures into the realm of unprofessionalism. These are acts that go beyond asking tough questions and instead contain a cruel or insulting remark. And although there is undoubtedly a gray area between impassioned disapproval and outright offensiveness, there are a handful of phrases that clearly fit to the latter category. For example, few would hesitate to call comments like “you’re wrong” or “you’re crazy” unprofessional. When this occurs, the presenter may find herself in a precarious position. At that moment, with dozens of eyes fixated on her, the presenter has three choices: defend, evade or become contentious. Now there is almost no situation that makes the presenter look good by becoming contentious (“the best defense is a good offense” may work on the gridiron, but doesn’t really apply in a community environment), so we can immediately throw this out as a legitimate option. Therefore, we are left with only two options – defend or evade.

The advantage of defending is that, if done well, the presenter can demonstrate not only her acumen, but also confidence that her approach is valid. A well-reasoned defense also tends to gain the presenter the respect and support of the audience – although it has little chance of swaying the critic. However, despite the potential upside, many times what starts off as a solid defense quickly snowballs into a desperate act of grasping for straws. And in some cases this can lead to an even more desperate move, the “Hail Mary”: answering a question with a question. Although in the heat of the moment this may seem like a compelling approach, the audience almost always views this tactic as a sign of desperation and frustration.

Next is evasion. This is a good choice when the presenter feels that: (1) the critic’s attack requires such a technical response that any attempt to defend would only raise more questions, one of which would surely trip her up, or (2) the attack targets an area for which she is unfamiliar and thus she cannot effectively debate the issue.

There are other reasons why a presenter may choose evasion as a strategy, such as time constraints, but the most important thing to remember when choosing this option is that it must be done tactfully. Evasion does not mean to skirt the issue or dismiss the comment altogether, but instead to suggest that the critic’s comments are best handled immediately after the presentation, when supporting documentation or data can be discussed more thoroughly.

Although there are countless ways to evade an unprofessional accusation or comment, one example is to reply with, “Under one set of assumptions, I would have to agree with you… however, those assumptions do not hold or apply in this project. Let me show you why after the session.”

Regardless of which approach you ultimately use, it’s always wise to take the high road and not get drawn into a war of words and personal attacks. So when you find yourself on the business end of impassioned adjectives, try to clarify the main point of the criticism by replacing the heated words with others that capture the main point. For example, if you are told, “That’s crazy. It will never work,” you may want to reply with, “I understand that this may seem to be a departure from normal practice, but we’ve demonstrated some real success in this environment.”

If you find yourself in this situation, there are a couple of things to keep in mind: (1) don’t take it personally, and (2) keep it light. The key is to turn the focus away from the disagreement and back to the topic at hand. If someone challenges you with an unprofessional comment or question, don’t expect that you will change his mind. Instead, maintain your composure and be confident in the knowledge that everyone else in the room is probably thinking the same thing as you … but it would be unprofessional to repeat those thoughts here.

David Lengacher (lengachd@ctc.com) is a principal operations research analyst at Concurrent Technologies Corporation with specialties in modeling and simulation and the measurement of efficiency. He holds an MBA from Purdue University and an MSIE from the University of Florida.

John Dulin (dulinj@ctc.com) is a principal operations research analyst at Concurrent Technologies Corporation, responsible for leading and managing O.R. projects in support of Department of Defense and healthcare initiatives. He has more than 15 years of O.R. experience, spanning government, industry and academia, and holds a Ph.D. in Industrial and Systems Engineering from North Carolina State University.