As a tactic of obstruction, stonewalling depends for its effectiveness on the superior power of the obstructor. But the obstructed can prevail by outwitting the stonewaller, or by acquiring superior power, or by feigning superior power. To deal with stonewallers, the tactics you use depend on the tactics you face.
Here are some stonewalling tactics based mostly on misrepresentation, with some suggestions for dealing with stonewallers. See "Stonewalling: II," Point Lookout for August 27, 2008, for tactics based on bureaucratic practices.
- Repetitive requests for clarification
- Clarification requests from stonewallers can include demands for specificity, definitions of terms, resolution of alleged ambiguity, and an astounding array of other delaying tactics. Example: "When you say, 'show stopper,' exactly what level of unresolved defect are you asking about: 4, 5, or both 4 and 5?"
- These requests are especially frustrating when they're delivered near the deadline you set for a response. Recognize that these clarification requests aren't real. Anticipate: ask questions early and with such extreme specificity that any extended response times or late clarification requests will be obvious delaying tactics.
- Minimalist responses
- Minimalist responses can be nearly content-free. Example: if you ask, "When do you think you can get me an answer?" the response can be, "As soon as we know." You were expecting a date or time, but the response describes a condition of availability.
- Phrase your question so as to proscribe content-free responses. Example: "Please tell me a date and time by which I'll have an answer." Worry not about sounding nit-picky; the stonewaller knows exactly what's happening, despite protestations or feigned hurts.
- Voluminous irrelevance
- "Stonewalling" is perhaps a
misnomer. In many cases, delay,
rather than blockage, is the
stonewaller's true goal.
- In a tactic almost opposite to the minimalist response, the stonewaller provides long-winded, detailed, irrelevant responses. The bulk can be so great that you might find difficulty extracting the information you sought, and, in any case, it can take a long time to discover that the answer you seek isn't there.
- Specificity is the key. Detail exactly what you're seeking, and include a suggestion that the requested information is all you want for the moment, "to save you <the stonewaller> time."
- Parental care
- This tactic is used by stonewallers to assuage frustration by explaining that the stonewaller's delay is in the best interests of the obstructed. Example: "If I told you now, I couldn't be sure it was right, and you'd be proceeding on false information." It is as if the obstructor is playing the role of parent, saying, "It's for your own good."
- Don't be taken in, even if the stonewaller seems amiable, kindly, and concerned. Always remember that your welfare is very far down on the obstructor's list of priorities, and that you haven't requested — and don't need — parental protection. Repeat your request more urgently: "I'll take that risk. Tell me what you know. Now, please."
Destructive as stonewallers can be, their tactics don't work well against stonewalling — it's hard to block the progress of someone who wants to stay put. Countering stonewallers requires creativity.
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
For more about obstructionist tactics generally, see "Obstructionist Tactics: I," Point Lookout for July 23, 2008.
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenrDUDwWaUxOAJtKFRner@ChaclWPJpPZohNvtYLEJoCanyon.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 Workplace Politics:
- When All Your Options Are Bad
- When you have several options, and all seem politically risky, what can you do? Here are two guidelines
to finding your way to a good outcome.
- The High Cost of Low Trust: I
- We usually think of Trust as one of those soft qualities that we would all like our organizational cultures
to have. Yet, truly paying attention to Trust at work is rare, in part, because we don't fully appreciate
what distrust really costs. Here are some of the ways we pay for low trust.
- A Critique of Criticism: II
- To make things better, we criticize, but we often miss the mark. We inflict pain without meaning to,
and some of that pain comes back to us. How can we get better outcomes, while reducing the risks of
- What Do You Need?
- When working issues jointly with others, especially with one other, we sometimes hear, "What do
you need to make this work?" Your answers can doom your effort — or make it a smashing success.
- The Power and Hazards of Anecdotes: I
- Anecdotes are short stories — sometimes just a single sentence. They're powerful tools of persuasion,
but they can also be dangerous, to both anecdote tellers and anecdote listeners.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming December 11: The Rhyme-as-Reason Effect
- When we speak or write, the phrases we use have both form and meaning. Although we usually think of form and meaning as distinct, we tend to assess as more meaningful and valid those phrases that are more beautifully formed. The rhyme-as-reason effect causes us to confuse the validity of a phrase with its aesthetics. Available here and by RSS on December 11.
- And on December 18: The Trap of Beautiful Language
- As we assess the validity of others' statements, we risk making a characteristically human error — we confuse the beauty of their language with the reliability of its meaning. We're easily thrown off by alliteration, anaphora, epistrophe, and chiasmus. Available here and by RSS on December 18.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenrDUDwWaUxOAJtKFRner@ChaclWPJpPZohNvtYLEJoCanyon.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 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.
Beware any resource that speaks of "winning" at workplace politics or "defeating" it. You can benefit or not, but there is no score-keeping, and it isn't a game.