Divisive Debates and Virulent Victories

Groups facing divisive issues risk making serious mistakes unknowingly. In group cultures accustomed to voting, formally or informally, people tend to measure the strength of alignments in terms of headcount. This perception obscures the passion people feel about the issues at hand, and it can lead us to make avoidable errors. Here are some insights about divisive issues.

Headcount doesn't measure passion

Whatever the actual numbers on any side of a question, they don't measure the intensity of feeling of group members. That intensity can determine how well the group works together after the decision.

Consider how you would feel if you were one of those whose strong feelings the majority discounted. Work hard to devise a solution that excites no strong feelings of rejection on the part of any group member.

Consider both content and consequences

Making choices about divisive issues creates consequences for group cohesion. Focusing only on the content — the issue itself — and failing to consider the feelings of those who disagree is a risky approach.

As a group member, include both content-related matters and the consequences for the group as you consider your choices. A legacy of bitterness and alienation can undermine the outcome you desire.

Differing passions evolve differently

After the decision, the passion people felt changes in different ways, depending upon whether the passion favored or opposed the decision. The passion of those who favored it is more likely to abate; the passion of those who opposed it is more likely to intensify.

If the chosen solution excited strong contrary passions, beware their ongoing intensification. Prepare by finding ways to defuse the tension, possibly with other decisions in related areas.

Refrain from imposing unsought advice

Advice to As a group member, include
both content-related matters
and the consequences for the
group as you consider
your choicesthose about to prevail to "consider the consequences of narrow victory," can sound like threats or blackmail from disgruntled losers. Advice to those who opposed the decision to "put your feelings aside and move on," can feel like a fresh insult.

The urge on the part of one party to advise the other to surrender or relent is actually an index of the poverty of wisdom in the decision itself.

Victors in divisive debates, whether decided by vote or fiat, sometimes argue, "We cannot be held hostage to threats or bitterness. We had to do what's best for the group." This argument is seductively simplistic — it addresses a nasty problem by creating an even nastier problem. The real problem — the difference in perceptions about the issue at hand — must be resolved. It cannot be resolved by alienating those who stand on the other side of the issue. That tactic weakens the group, perhaps fatally.  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!

For more about the Pyrrhic War and other events of the early development of Rome, see The Beginnings of Rome: Italy From the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (Circa 1,000 to 264 B.C.), by Tim Cornell. Order from Amazon.com

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 Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

Running Your Personal Squirrel Cage

As Glen rounded the corner behind the old oak, entering the last mile of his morning run, he suddenly realized that he was thinking about picking up the dry cleaning tomorrow and changing his medical appointment. Physically, he was jogging in a park, but mentally, he was running in a squirrel cage. How does this happen? What can we do about it?

Games for Meetings: I

We spend a lot of time and emotional energy in meetings, much of it engaged in any of dozens of ritualized games. Here's Part I of a little catalog of some of our favorites, and what we can do about them.

Management Debt: I

Management debt, like technical debt, arises when we choose paths — usually the lowest-cost paths — that lead to recurring costs that are typically higher than alternatives. Why do we take on management debt? How can we pay it down?

Issues-Only Team Meetings

Time spent in regular meetings is productive to the extent that it moves the team closer to its objectives. Because uncovering and clarifying issues is more productive than distributing information or listening to status reports, issues-only team meetings focus energy where it will help most.

On Ineffectual Leaders

When the leader of an important business unit is ineffectual, we need to make a change to protect the organization. Because termination can seem daunting, people often turn to one or more of a variety of other options. Those options have risks.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness 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