It's been a few months... did this new direction help, Jeff? I'd love to see a follow-up if you have the time.

I actually ended up switching positions since starting this, meaning I don't have any particularly good observations. I can give some general rambling observations:

In the short term, it was very effective, people were often very shocked when you cut the conversation short and walked out of a meeting. There were a few times people would feel the need to stop you as you walked out of the room. At this point it was necessary to just calmly listen to their observations, acknowledge them and reiterate that you are going off to fix them (BUT NOT TO SIT DOWN). This is only effective in team settings, not larger business units.

In my new position, I find the culture is even more "blamey". In this position, I am starting from further behind and people put greater importance on blame, and are less appreciative of the approach. However, I have found that the less assertive team members are very appreciative of the approach, it allows them to do the work that they are good at while evading an escalating blame game.

Contrasting different organizations, I think a clear cut task list is key to an assertive approach. Without clear objectives, it is very difficult to be assertive that a resolution has been identified. Very often it becomes a question of "resolution to what? we should talk about that some more". I would say, that the effectiveness is culturally sensitive, and dependant on two variables:

1. Clear team objectives: with clear objectives you can make clear statements as to what you are going to achieve. Also with this, you need to have clear statements; for me this meant studying a primer on logic (from the 50's?). Because the book focussed on formal logic from a linguistic standpoint (think Law and Philosophy), it firmed up my statements to be less ambiguous.

2. Calmness in delivery: while it needs to be firmly (assertively) delivered, it also needs to be done in such a way that it does not feel dismissive of people's opinions. People are going to be a little put out that you are so abrupt, but if you are addressing all of their concerns, there is nothing they can really say about it (you just appear a little eccentric). If you are at all rude, people will take offence and feel the need to further defend their position.

Since starting this approach, I have had a contracted team lead, and a manager, explicitly state that they are having me attend meetings just me to diffuse tense political situations. They have used the word "calm" to describe my behaviour, but I think they may have missed what I am really doing, which is just interrupting useless discussion to summarize already presented solutions.