I might as well say at the outset that we are not fans of the “empty chair”, whatever the circumstances or risks.
During the various dossiers, mandates, and projects in which we have been involved, it has been very unpleasant to note that this practice - which is somewhat debatable - has become commonplace or has been practised by certain individuals or groups of individuals.
After some thought and observation, we found that the people practising this “empty chair” approach were rarely doing so because of a lack of time or diary conflicts, but much more often because of tactics, politics, or even - and this is more serious - incompetence. Let’s look at the reasons one by one.
Not being present can be a tactical advantage, i.e., you can show - by your absence - that the theme is not important or that you don’t support the project, the approach, etc. It can also be a way of rebelling against the management. It can also be a way of bouncing back at a later stage after having let the “others” sort out the problems or “buy time”.
Political” absence is the second argument for not being present at discussions or meetings. It is often a question of showing that you do not support this or that person, that the participants are not up to the job, or that you want to be able to argue further that you do not support the decisions taken and that you feel in no way bound.
Lastly, the “empty chair” principle may be applied out of incompetence, i.e., the participant sees no point in taking part because the subject is not considered important, whether from a technical, tactical, or political point of view…
In all cases, the arguments are often unacceptable and the collateral damage difficult to manage. As well as sending a message to the organiser and/or the other participants, this undermines the relationship of trust, collaboration and ‘sharing’ of solutions, and often wastes time.
Taking part doesn’t mean winning every time: that’s what projects, mandates and other professional challenges are all about. Not being part of the game - or doing so opportunistically - can be dangerous: it shows a form of weakness and, above all, that you are not capable of confronting - when necessary - other opinions, annoyances and, above all, arguments.
It is often preferable to lose a few positions while taking part than to remain on the sidelines because you have not defended your arguments. Finally, in most cases, taking part enriches others and yourself, so why deprive yourself?
In rare cases, the practice of “the empty chair” may be valid, but it must be said that in most situations, being present and committed is the best way to prove your openness, your willingness to cooperate, to move forward and to want to build despite the challenges.
The “empty chair” principle is a form of procrastination: it means putting off until tomorrow what you could do today, even if imperfectly. Why give up?
Good thoughts, happy weeks and see you soon.