Occasionally a team member or two seem clueless on the concept. They haven't understood something basic to the effort, or worse, they think they understand, but they don't. If the rest of the team is wrong — and doesn't realize it — even one clueless individual can truly be a gift. Debates lead to new understanding, and usually that's progress. But most often, the minority view was just wrong, and everyone else was on the right path.
Sometimes the minority is confused because of indolence or distraction. That's best treated as a performance issue. At other times, the problem is miscommunication, or lack of background, or the difficulty of the concept itself. If this situation is handled indelicately, it is most fraught with risk to relationships.
Here are three tips for avoiding those risks. In what follows, Charlie is the clueless one, and I'll alternate Charlie's gender.
- The clueless usually don't identify themselves
- If Charlie doesn't realize that he's clueless, he sees no need to announce his cluelessness. But even if he senses that something is amiss, he might conceal his confusion to avoid embarrassment, especially if ridicule or derision — even the good-natured kind — is part of team culture.
- Even when everyone seems to grasp the issue, it can be risky to assume without careful verification that they actually do. Be attuned to the nuances that suggest confusion.
- Misimpressions and misconceptions happen for a reason
- Charlie might have developed her conceptual understanding on the basis of ambiguous information. The information might not have been sufficient to clearly distinguish between the misconception she developed, and the concept everyone else acquired. Charlie's version of the concept might actually be consistent with the information she was given.
- Even though the If people don't realize that
they're clueless, they see no
need to announce
their cluelessnessinformation Charlie got might have been identical to what others received, her past experience and knowledge might have led her to see things differently. To manage this risk, be ridiculously explicit when communicating difficult or abstract ideas. Use numerous examples.
- Consider a private discussion
- When you suspect that Charlie's conceptual understanding is somehow incorrect, public inquiry is an ineffective and risky way to investigate the matter. By the time others suspect confusion, Charlie almost certainly does, too. He'll notice any investigation, even the indirect kind, and he might very well respond so as to conceal the misconception.
- A private conversation can be much more productive and sparing of Charlie's feelings, because he's more likely to be forthcoming in private than he is in a more public setting.
Very likely, you felt that you weren't clueless on the concept of being clueless on the concept. But if you were clueless about it, you wouldn't have known it. Anyway, I hope you aren't now. But then, I have no way of knowing. Top Next Issue
Occasionally we have the experience of belonging to a great team. Thrilling as it is, the experience is rare. In part, it's rare because we usually strive only for adequacy, not for greatness. We do this because we don't fully appreciate the returns on greatness. Not only does it feel good to be part of great team — it pays off. Check out my Great Teams Workshop to lead your team onto the path toward greatness. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenoxMWTzVIIwXOXunBner@ChacaGlafcmTnfhCLqKuoCanyon.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 Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:
- When You Think They've Made Up Their Minds
- In tough negotiations, when attempts to resolve differences have failed, we sometimes conclude that
"they've made up their minds," but other explanations abound. Keeping an open mind about why
other people seem to have closed theirs can help us find a resolution.
- Who Would You Take With You to Mars?
- What makes a great team? What traits do you value in teammates? Project teams can learn a lot from the
latest thinking about designing teams for extended space exploration.
- Guidelines for Sharing "Resources"
- Often, team members belong to several different teams. The leaders of teams whose members have divided
responsibilities must sometimes contend with each other for the efforts and energies of the people they
share. Here are some suggestions for sharing people effectively.
- The Risks of Too Many Projects: I
- Some organizations try to run too many development projects at once. Whether developing new offerings,
or working to improve the organization itself, taking on too many projects can defocus the organization
and depress performance.
- Paradoxical Policies: I
- Although most organizational policies are constructive, many are outdated or nonsensical, and some are
actually counterproductive. Here's a collection of policies that would be funny if they weren't real.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming February 27: Brainstorming and Speedstorming: II
- Recent research into the effectiveness of brainstorming has raised some questions. Motivated to examine alternatives, I ran into speedstorming. Here's Part II of an exploration of the properties of speedstorming. Available here and by RSS on February 27.
- And on March 6: A Pain Scale for Meetings
- Most meetings could be shorter, less frequent, and more productive than they are. Part of the problem is that we don't realize how much we do to get in our own way. If we track the incidents of dysfunctional activity, we can use the data to spot trends and take corrective action. Available here and by RSS on March 6.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenrNFCRkLlrbtJftganer@ChachxuhzpGqPlnMsssboCanyon.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, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
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.