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? rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.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:
- What Insubordinate Nonsubordinates Want: II
- When you're responsible for an organizational function, and someone not reporting to you won't recognize
your authority, or doesn't comply with policies you rightfully established, you have a hard time carrying
out your responsibilities. Why does this happen?
- Social Entry Strategies: II
- When we first engage with a group at work, we employ social entry strategies to make places for ourselves
to carry out our responsibilities, and to find enjoyment and fulfillment at work. Here's Part II of
a little catalog of social entry strategies.
- Congruent Decision Making: I
- Decision makers who rely on incomplete or biased information are more likely to make faulty decisions.
Congruent decision making can limit the incidence of bad decisions.
- Projection Deception
- Practitioners of the dark side of workplace politics are skilled in the art of deception. One technique
involves exploiting psychological projection on the part of the person deceived.
- Facts, Opinions, Estimates, and Desires
- One reason why resource allocation debates can become so difficult is confusion about the differences
among facts, opinions, estimates, and desires. Clarifying their differences can reduce the length and
intensity of resource allocation debates.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming February 8: Kerfuffles That Seem Like Something More
- Much of what we regard as political conflict is a series of squabbles commonly called kerfuffles. They captivate us while they're underway, but after a month or two they're forgotten. Why do they happen? Why do they persist? Available here and by RSS on February 8.
- And on February 15: Four Razors for Organizational Behavior
- Deviant organizational behavior can harm the people and the organization. In choosing responses, we consider what drives the perpetrators. Considering Malice, Incompetence, Ignorance, and Greed, we can devise four guidelines for making these choices. Available here and by RSS on February 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.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
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.