Dealing with Implied Accusations

As Tim listed the people who would be on the committee, Cora expected to hear her name. When she didn't, she was stunned. She somehow got through the rest of the meeting without revealing the storm brewing inside her, and lingered at the end to talk to Tim. "I noticed," she said.

"I thought you might. Let's walk back to my office."

Fortunately, it was a short walk. They entered Tim's office, he closed the door, and they sat.

"Part of the problem is that you give the impression that you think that Marigold will fail," he began.

"It will, if we don't replace Bellamy and…" He stopped her.

"Hear me out. There's more. I actually want that viewpoint represented, but I have concerns about how you would go about it. I'll include you on three conditions. First, that we don't go into it with an assumption of failure. Second, that our conversations are two-way with feedback possible on both sides. And finally, that all ideas are listened to and if an idea is deemed unworkable or unusable, that perspective is not a reflection on the person. We move on and get the job done without holding grudges, or clamming up."

Cora sat silently, stung.

Tim's three conditions subtly attacked Cora without directly confronting her with an issue. If she accepted the conditions, she might have seemed to be admitting fault. And if she confronted Tim, she might have seemed defensive, which would have strengthened the third implied accusation. Here are the three implied accusations.

Failure

Cora believes that the project will fail.

Feedback

The word Defending against implied
accusations is a
losing strategy"two-way" suggests that there has been some "one-way" feedback. Tim is suggesting that Cora would insist on "one-way" feedback — presumably from Cora to Tim.

Grudges

Though Cora and Tim had had differences of opinion, there had been no grudges or "clamming up," no attacks or "reflections," but Tim was accusing Cora of all these things. This accusation protects the attack that lies within the message itself. By attacking Cora for attacking, Tim might be trying to constrain her not to expose his tactics.

Fortunately, Cora could choose not to participate. The next day, after much deep thought, she told Tim:

"I do hear you though, and I find your three requirements completely reasonable for anyone on any team. I'm open to finding whatever new is needed so that we might have more choices together in the future, and as time passes, I guess we'll see what happens."

Since full participation on the committee wasn't a real option, Cora reasoned that giving it up cost her nothing. By bowing out, she chose the high road. Within an hour Tim phoned her, seeking to work out their "communication problem" using a third party mediator.

Implied accusations make us defensive, which is almost always a bad place to be. Instead of defending, look for an unexpected response that puts you on the high ground — always a more comfortable place to be. And the view is better, too.  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!

Implied accusations can also come in the form of questions. See "Nasty Questions: I," Point Lookout for November 8, 2006, for more.

Your comments are welcome

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.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

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.

Related articles

More articles on Ethics at Work:

Scheduling as Risk Management

When we schedule a complex project, we balance logical order, resource constraints, and even politics. Here are some techniques for using scheduling to manage risk and reduce costs.

Problem-Solving Ambassadors

In dispersed teams, we often hold meetings to which we send delegations to work out issues of mutual interest. These working sessions are a mix of problem solving and negotiation. People who are masters of both are problem-solving ambassadors, and they're especially valuable to dispersed or global teams.

Making Meaning

When we see or hear the goings-on around us, we interpret them to make meaning and significance. Some interpretations are thoughtful, but most are almost instantaneous. Since the instantaneous ones are sometimes goofy or dangerous, here's a look at how we make interpretations.

Finding the Third Way

When a team is divided, and agreement seems out of reach, attempts to resolve the conflict usually focus on the differences between the contrasting positions. Focusing instead on their similarities can be a productive technique for reaching agreement.

The Stupidity Attribution Error

In workplace debates, we sometimes conclude erroneously that only stupidity can explain why our debate partners fail to grasp the elegance or importance of our arguments. There are many other possibilities.

See also Ethics at Work and Ethics at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.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, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

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 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info