Three people sitting on chairs, talking. One person is holding a piece of paper and receiving feedback.

You’ve probably been in that meeting…the one where someone, let’s call him Nathan, shuts down every idea before it ever has a chance to breathe. The energy shifts, people withdraw, and what could have been a creative exchange becomes another stalled conversation. Another meeting where nothing gets done and problems don’t actually get resolved.

It’s tempting to point the finger at Nathan. To label him as negative or resistant. But I invite you to pause and turn the lens inward. Because when the group collectively goes silent after a critique, that’s not just his behavior, it’s a shared dynamic. And in that moment, accountability belongs to everyone.

When silence follows resistance, the team reinforces the idea that there are no good ideas worth pursuing. Innovation gets replaced with frustration, and the group’s potential stays locked behind discomfort. Furthermore, people become more and more resistant to introducing new ideas to the space, partly because they expect Nathan to shut them down and partly because they’ve learned no one wants to hear it (that’s what silence often communicates - disinterest and disconnection).

So what can you do instead?

Try surfacing the tension. Name what’s happening. Invite a different process.

Things you might say:

“I hear how this idea might feel far-fetched, but before we shut it down, let’s take a few minutes to explore how it could work.”
“Nathan, you raise important points about potential barriers. I’d love for us to use that same insight to think through what might help this idea succeed.”
“I hear your idea. My instinct is to say it won't work, but I want to give it a chance. So let’s approach this with an assumption that it does work. How do we get there?”

These simple shifts reframe critique as contribution. It keeps the group connected through curiosity and creativity, rather than disconnected from defensiveness.

If you know your team tends to “shut down” by default, design a process that honors both realism and imagination. For instance, set aside time to name all the reasons something could work before exploring potential barriers. Then go one step further and ask how those barriers could be addressed.

It’s not about silencing dissent. It’s about giving it purpose. When skepticism is invited to serve creativity rather than stop it, teams begin to build psychological safety, shared ownership, and momentum.

You’d be surprised how many more possibilities surface when people are invited to contribute rather than simply “provide feedback”.