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
begets compliance,
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?
- Stop
- Don't use these techniques yourself. Replace them with a new pattern of honest debate and legitimate, respectful persuasion on the merits.
- Educate
- 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 welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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.
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 Emotions at Work:
- When You Need a Lift
- When we depend on praise, positive support or consumption to feel good, we're giving other people or
things power over us. Finding within ourselves whatever we need to feel good about ourselves is one
path to autonomy and freedom.
- Unintended Consequences
- Sometimes, when we solve problems, the solutions create new problems that can be worse than the problems
we solve. Why does this happen? How can we limit this effect?
- 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.
- Good Change, Bad Change: II
- When we distinguish good change from bad, we often get it wrong: we favor things that would harm us,
and shun things that would help. When we do get it wrong, we're sometimes misled by social factors.
- Staying in Abilene
- A "Trip to Abilene," identified by Jerry Harvey, is a group decision to undertake an effort
that no group members believe in. Extending the concept slightly, "Staying in Abilene" happens
when groups fail even to consider changing something that everyone would agree needs changing.
See also Emotions at Work and Emotions at Work for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development
- Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.
- And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law
- When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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
Follow Rick
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed
- 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.
- More