Stonewalling: I

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.

Next time, we'll address those tactics that rely for their effectiveness on bureaucratic behavior.   Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

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 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 Workplace Politics:

Knife-Edge Performers

Some employees deliver performance episodically, while some deliver steady, but barely adequate performance. Either way, they keep their managers drained and anxious, on the "knife edge" of terminating them. How can you detect knife-edge performers, and what can you do about them?

Political Framing: Communications

In organizational politics, one class of toxic tactics is framing — accusing a group or individual by offering interpretations of their actions to knowingly and falsely make them seem responsible for reprehensible or negligent acts. Here are some communications tactics framers use.

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.

Career Opportunity or Career Trap: I

When we're presented with an opportunity that seems too good to be true, as the saying goes, it probably is. Although it's easy to decline free vacations, declining career opportunities is another matter. Here's a look at indicators that a career opportunity might be a career trap.

Embedded Technology Groups and the Dunning-Kruger Effect

Groups of technical specialists in fields that differ markedly from the main business of the enterprise that hosts them must sometimes deal with wrong-headed decisions made by people who think they know more about the technology than they actually do.

See also Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming September 3: Contributions in Team Meetings: Advocating

An agenda in the form of an ordered list of topics might not provide an appropriate framework for a given meeting. For example, if A depends on B, and B depends on A, we must find a way to discuss A and B together in some orderly fashion. Here are some alternatives to linear, ordered agendas. Available here and by RSS on September 3.

And on September 10: Contributions in Team Meetings: Scoping

Some meetings focus on solving specific problems. We call them "working sessions." More often, we delegate problem solving to task teams, while meetings wrestle with the difficult task of identifying or "scoping" problems rather than solving them. Scoping discussions can be perilous. Available here and by RSS on September 10.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.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