As a tactic of obstruction, stonewalling depends for its effectiveness on the superior power of the obstructor. But the obstructed can prevail by outwitting the stonewaller, or by acquiring superior power, or by feigning superior power. To deal with stonewallers, the tactics you use depend on the tactics you face.
Here are some stonewalling tactics based mostly on misrepresentation, with some suggestions for dealing with stonewallers. See "Stonewalling: II," Point Lookout for August 27, 2008, for tactics based on bureaucratic practices.
- Repetitive requests for clarification
- Clarification requests from stonewallers can include demands for specificity, definitions of terms, resolution of alleged ambiguity, and an astounding array of other delaying tactics. Example: "When you say, 'show stopper,' exactly what level of unresolved defect are you asking about: 4, 5, or both 4 and 5?"
- These requests are especially frustrating when they're delivered near the deadline you set for a response. Recognize that these clarification requests aren't real. Anticipate: ask questions early and with such extreme specificity that any extended response times or late clarification requests will be obvious delaying tactics.
- Minimalist responses
- Minimalist responses can be nearly content-free. Example: if you ask, "When do you think you can get me an answer?" the response can be, "As soon as we know." You were expecting a date or time, but the response describes a condition of availability.
- Phrase your question so as to proscribe content-free responses. Example: "Please tell me a date and time by which I'll have an answer." Worry not about sounding nit-picky; the stonewaller knows exactly what's happening, despite protestations or feigned hurts.
- Voluminous irrelevance
- "Stonewalling" is perhaps a
misnomer. In many cases, delay,
rather than blockage, is the
stonewaller's true goal.
- In a tactic almost opposite to the minimalist response, the stonewaller provides long-winded, detailed, irrelevant responses. The bulk can be so great that you might find difficulty extracting the information you sought, and, in any case, it can take a long time to discover that the answer you seek isn't there.
- Specificity is the key. Detail exactly what you're seeking, and include a suggestion that the requested information is all you want for the moment, "to save you <the stonewaller> time."
- Parental care
- This tactic is used by stonewallers to assuage frustration by explaining that the stonewaller's delay is in the best interests of the obstructed. Example: "If I told you now, I couldn't be sure it was right, and you'd be proceeding on false information." It is as if the obstructor is playing the role of parent, saying, "It's for your own good."
- Don't be taken in, even if the stonewaller seems amiable, kindly, and concerned. Always remember that your welfare is very far down on the obstructor's list of priorities, and that you haven't requested — and don't need — parental protection. Repeat your request more urgently: "I'll take that risk. Tell me what you know. Now, please."
Destructive as stonewallers can be, their tactics don't work well against stonewalling — it's hard to block the progress of someone who wants to stay put. Countering stonewallers requires creativity.
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
For more about obstructionist tactics generally, see "Obstructionist Tactics: I," Point Lookout for July 23, 2008.
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenZthrDKODznZBKmjrner@ChacDpKWswJvlybQfTUboCanyon.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 Workplace Politics:
- How to Get a Promotion in Line
- If you want a promotion in line — a promotion to the next supervisory level in your organization
— what should you do now to make it come about? What risks are there?
- Before You Blow the Whistle: I
- When organizations know that they've done something they shouldn't have, or they haven't done something
they should have, they often try to conceal the bad news. When dealing with whistleblowers, they can
be especially ruthless.
- Passive Deceptions at Work
- Among the vast family of workplace deceptions, those that involve camouflage are both the most common
and the most difficult to detect. Here's a look at how passive camouflage can play a role in workplace
- Grace Under Fire: II
- When we debate at work, things sometimes turn unpleasant. Out of control, one party might maneuver the
other into losing control. If we have better tools for recognizing these tactics, we're better able
to maintain self-control. Here's Part II of such a toolkit.
- Unanswerable Questions
- Some questions are beyond our power to answer, but many of us try anyway. What are some of these unanswerable
questions and how can we respond?
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming May 2: Narcissistic Behavior at Work: VII
- Narcissistic behavior at work prevents trusting relationships from developing. It also disrupts existing relationships, and generates toxic conflict. One class of behaviors that's especially threatening to relationships is disregard for the feelings of others. In this part of our series we examine the effects of that disregard. Available here and by RSS on May 2.
- And on May 9: Unethical Coordination
- When an internal department or an external source is charged with managing information about a large project, a conflict of interest can develop. That conflict presents opportunities for unethical behavior. What is the nature of that conflict, and what ethical breaches can occur? Available here and by RSS on May 9.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenOvJfmDSIRbImVVFuner@ChacnOXBoVHCKzkUehqqoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, 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.
Beware any resource that speaks of "winning" at workplace politics or "defeating" it. You can benefit or not, but there is no score-keeping, and it isn't a game.