Despite the group's gathering consensus to the contrary, Eric was determined to have his work included in the Marigold release. In desperation, Eric felt he had no recourse. "OK, that's fine," he said. "I'll just take my case directly to the customer and we'll see what happens then."
Loren steamed, but outwardly kept her cool. Calmly, she said, "And that just might be a career-threatening move. I strongly advise you to reconsider."
If the team yields to Eric's threat, it won't be deciding the issue on its merits, which could lead to a serious error. And if Loren's coercion succeeds, she'll gain only Eric's intimidated compliance — a weak foundation on which to build a team.
Here are three popular ways to use fear to persuade others to accept our points of view.
- The offer you can't refuse
- Named for a ploy described in The Godfather, by Mario Puzo. We accept the assertion because of the high cost of rejecting it. Sometimes called a scare tactic, or argumentum ad baculum it can vary in intensity. Eric is using a relatively low-intensity form, while Loren's is somewhat more intense. Threats of physical violence are the extreme form.
- Appeal to adverse consequences
- When failure of the assertion implies a consequence we'd rather not accept, we sometimes "conclude" that the assertion must be true. Example: "The problem must be in their design, because if it isn't in theirs, it's in ours."
- Begging terrifying questions
- Using fear as
a tool of debate
not heartfelt support
- Using terror in combination with begging the question, we accept the assertion because of a scary secondary assertion that we never actually test, because fear takes over. Example: "If we use that approach, the project will be at least three months late." We might ask, 'Why will it be late? Why three months late and not two months late?' But we rarely ask — we're too terrified.
When people use fear either in debate or to forge "buy-in," your organization pays a price — in flawed decisions, and in compliance instead of heartfelt support. What can you do about fear tactics?
- Don't use these techniques yourself. Replace them with a new pattern of honest debate and legitimate, respectful persuasion on the merits.
- Educate people about scare tactics, the appeal from adverse consequences, and begging terrifying questions. Discuss the adverse consequences of using these tactics.
- Frame the problem
- Using these methods is either an ethical issue or a performance issue. Using them with the intention to deceive is unethical. Using them unknowingly is a performance issue.
Allowing someone else to use fear in debate or persuasion without taking action of some kind, might be both an ethical issue and a performance issue. And it might not — your job status does limit your responsibility to act when you notice someone using the technique. Whatever your status in the organization, though, beware of the adverse consequences of not thinking clearly. Top Next Issue
Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenNthRojnAKxsLSsKener@ChacbECXCceJzExEYcufoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Emotions at Work:
- Never, Ever, Kill the Messenger
- If you're a manager in a project-oriented organization, you need to know the full, unvarnished Truth.
When you kill a messenger, you deliver a message of your own: Tell me the Truth at your peril. Killing
messengers has such predictable results that you have to question any report you receive — good
news or bad.
- On Virtual Relationships
- Whether or not you work as part of a virtual team, you probably work with some people you rarely meet
face-to-face. And there are some people you've never met, and probably never will. What does it take
to maintain good working relationships with people you rarely meet?
- Teamwork Myths: I vs. We
- In high performance teams, cooperative behavior is a given. But in the experience of many, truly cooperative
behavior is so rare that they believe that something fundamental is at work — that cooperative
behavior requires surrendering the self, which most people are unwilling to do. It's another teamwork myth.
- Coercion by Presupposition
- Coercion, physical or psychological, has no place in the workplace. Yet we see it and experience it
frequently. We can end the use of presupposition as a tool of coercion, but only if we take personal
responsibility for ending it.
- Toxic Conflict in Teams: Attacks
- In toxic conflict, people try to resolve their differences by eliminating each other's ability to provide
opposition. In the early stages of toxic conflict, the attacks often escape notice. Here's a catalog
of covert attack tactics.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming January 24: Understanding Delegation
- It's widely believed that managers delegate some of their own authority and responsibility to their subordinates, who then use that authority and responsibility to get their work done. That view is unfortunate. It breeds micromanagers. Available here and by RSS on January 24.
- And on January 31: Nine Brainstorming Demotivators: I
- The quality of the output of brainstorming sessions is notoriously variable. One source of variation is the enthusiasm of contributors. Here's Part I of a set of nine phenomena that can limit contributions to brainstorm sessions. Available here and by RSS on January 31.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenKboplBGtRFQbbrlvner@ChacLFQpyeKkIlwThTtDoCanyon.com or (617) 491-6289, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program. Here's a date for this program:
- Your stuff is brilliant! Thank you!
- You and Scott Adams both secretly work here, right?
- I really enjoy my weekly newsletters. I appreciate the quick read.
- A sort of Dr. Phil for Management!
- …extremely accurate, inspiring and applicable to day-to-day … invaluable.