Perhaps you've witnessed destructive collisions between teammates. Destructive collisions can arise from innocent misunderstandings, long-term campaigns to advance careers, spontaneous attacks, or acts of revenge. They can be mildly awkward or intensely damaging. Rarely do they advance the team's work. At best, they slow progress; at worst, they move the team so far from its objectives that success requires redefining the objectives.
Historical debates are one kind of collision in which the issue is who said what, who agreed to what, who decided what, or the like. Historical debates can take place in any medium: face-to-face, email, text, stone tablets, whatever. The exchanges being debated might or might not have been witnessed; there might or might not be a record of the incident or of the exchange. None of that matters.
What does matter is that the past is always debatable. Usually, the debaters' recollections differ; the witnesses' (if any) recollections (if any) differ; and interpretations of any records that might exist likewise differ. The past is always debatable.
Historical debates are difficult to settle. Sadly, many bystanders feel that they aren't involved; the debate concerns only the debaters. These bystanders just, well, stand by, while time, the most precious asset of any team effort, passes.
Other bystanders recognize the damage being done, but feel helpless to resolve the debate. Indeed, they are helpless, or nearly so. These bystanders tend to wait, hoping for a debate fizzle. At best, in meetings, a bystander might intervene to suspend the debate, suggesting, for example, "Can't you take this off line?" The debate might halt for a time, only to arise again later.
Two strategic moves can help teams experiencing repeated historical debates. First, end the debate, permanently, and return to real work. Second, prevent historical debates from arising in the future. Here are two suggestions for accomplishing this.
- Identify the pattern
- When no When no debate is actually
underway, educate the team
about the historical debate
pattern. Explore its
futility and irrelevance.debate is actually underway, educate the team about the historical debate pattern. Explore its futility and irrelevance. Identifying the pattern, and naming it, gives the team a verbal and conceptual vocabulary essential for calling out historical debates when they arise. The existence of that vocabulary can deter people from initiating historical debates.
- Learn how bystanders can intervene
- To end historical debates when they occur, neutral intervention is required. Taking sides usually just intensifies the debate. Instead, bystanders can offer, "Would either of you like to hear how I saw the situation?" Most often, the bystander's view will differ from the views of the debaters. Such offers won't resolve the debates, but they can demonstrate clearly how useless the debates actually are, and that can lead to voluntary suspensions of the exchanges.
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? rbrenbDYtqIbibJptMfraner@ChacdiLuriQAdGnkPWHwoCanyon.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 Conflict Management:
- Logically Illogical
- Discussions in meetings and in written media can get long and complex. When a chain of reasoning gets
long enough, we sometimes make fundamental errors of logic, especially when we're under time pressure.
Here are just a few.
- Stalking the Elephant in the Room: II
- When everyone is thinking something that no one dares discuss, we say that there is "an elephant
in the room." Free-ranging elephants are expensive and dangerous to both the organization and its
people. Here's Part II of a catalog of indicators that elephants are about.
- How to Create Distrust
- A trusting environment is critical to high performance. That's why it's important to recognize behaviors
that erode trust in others. Here's a little catalog of methods people use — intentionally or not
— to create distrust.
- Pushing the "Stupid" Button
- Some people know exactly how to lead others to feel ignorant or unintelligent. Here's a little catalog
of tactics to watch for.
- Directed Attention Fatigue
- Humans have a limited capacity to concentrate attention on thought-intensive tasks. After a time, we
must rest and renew. Most brainwork jobs aren't designed with this in mind.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming October 25: Workplace Memes
- Some patterns of workplace society reduce organizational effectiveness in ways that often escape our notice. Here are five examples. Available here and by RSS on October 25.
- And on November 1: Risk Creep: I
- Risk creep is a term that describes the insidious and unrecognized increase in risk that occurs despite our every effort to mitigate risk or avoid it altogether. What are the dominant sources of risk creep? Available here and by RSS on November 1.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenHmWtXiMLoYIkunyUner@ChacwBevrMUykoMUcgvioCanyon.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
- Ten Project Management Fallacies: The Power of Avoiding Hazards
- Most of what we know about managing projects is useful and effective, but some of what we know "just ain't so." Identifying the fallacies of project management reduces risk and enhances your ability to complete projects successfully. Even more important, avoiding these traps can demonstrate the value and power of the project management profession in general, and your personal capabilities in particular. In this program we describe ten of these beliefs. There are almost certainly many more, but these ten are a good start. We'll explore the situations where these fallacies are most likely to expose projects to risk, and suggest techniques for avoiding them. Read more about this program. Here's a date for this program:
- 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.