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.
- Cora believes that the project will fail.
- 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.
- 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 certainly don't believe that Marigold will fail. I don't know what I might have said that you might have used to conclude that, but I do not believe that it will fail. The committee has my full support. And given the obvious difficulty that we have communicating, I think it best that I not participate for the time being.
"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 welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenCqswngoINTyRkEtlner@ChacgBxPpvwoyTrdTorPoCanyon.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:
- Making Memories to Cherish
- We all have cherished memories — lovely moments we can replay whenever we want to feel happy.
How would you like to have a lot more of them?
- Fill in the Blanks
- When we conceal information about ourselves and our areas of responsibility, we make room for others
to speculate. Speculation is rarely helpful. It's wise to fill in the blanks.
- Ego Depletion: An Introduction
- Ego depletion is a recently discovered phenomenon that limits our ability to regulate our own behavior.
It explains such seemingly unrelated phenomena as marketing campaign effectiveness, toxic conflict contagion,
and difficulty losing weight.
- Human Limitations and Meeting Agendas
- Recent research has discovered a class of human limitations that constrain our ability to exert self-control
and to make wise decisions. Accounting for these effects when we construct agendas can make meetings
more productive and save us from ourselves.
- Scope Creep and Confirmation Bias
- As we've seen, some cognitive biases can contribute to the incidence of scope creep in projects and
other efforts. Confirmation bias, which causes us to prefer evidence that bolsters our preconceptions,
is one of these.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming October 17: Overt Belligerence in Meetings
- Some meetings lose their way in vain attempts to mollify a belligerent participant who simply will not be mollified. Here's one scenario that fits this pattern. Available here and by RSS on October 17.
- And on October 24: Conversation Irritants: I
- Conversations at work can be frustrating even when everyone tries to be polite, clear, and unambiguous. But some people actually try to be nasty, unclear, and ambiguous. Here's Part I of a small collection of their techniques. Available here and by RSS on October 24.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendANMWjGDiFHziLRfner@ChacUjosxjhplUUfhZJGoCanyon.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.
- 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.