When someone in a decision-making group raises a disquieting question — about a supposed fact, an assumption, a report, whatever — the group might focus on the individual who raised the question, rather than the question itself. They might attribute to the questioner dark motives or character defects, such as intentionally sowing dissension, or not being a team player, or being negative, or worse. If the group sees a pattern of such behavior, or if the questioner is in the minority, the group might stigmatize the questioner, even if the questions raised were legitimate.
This pattern of group behavior can prevent the group from foreseeing the foreseeable. By limiting its access to questions about its decisions, it exposes itself to the risk of flaws in its process, which can lead to errors.
Here are three indicators that a group might be focusing on the questioner, rather than the question. In what follows, I'll use the term dissenter to denote the person who has raised the disquieting question.
- Issues raised by dissenters remain unaddressed
- Groups can fail to address dissenters' issues in several ways. Issues can be dismissed; brushed aside after cursory, biased, or disingenuous investigation; simply ignored; moved to the "parking lot" never to be retrieved; or assigned to investigative committees that fail to report back until too late.
- Does your group deal forthrightly and promptly with disquieting issues raised by dissenters?
- Identity of the dissenter determines how issues are treated
- Sometimes the respect paid to disquieting issues is based, in part, on the identity of the originator. In effect, the group confuses the importance of the issue with the social status or motives of the dissenter. When this happens, groups are less likely to foresee the foreseeable, because they're more likely to overlook important issues.
- When disquieting issues are Sometimes the respect paid to
disquieting issues is based, in
part, on the identity
of the originatorraised, is the action taken truly independent of the originator's identity?
- Issues once raised by dissenters, and dismissed, are later resurrected
- Some groups resurrect issues that were initially raised by dissenters, but which were eventually set aside. The issue can suddenly become legitimate when someone else resurrects it, possibly with new terminology, or accompanied by claims that conditions have changed and the issue is now worthy of consideration. A pattern of issues originated by dissenters, then set aside but later dealt with after being resurrected by members of the majority, suggests that the identity of an issue's advocate influences the group's evaluation of issue significance.
- Does your group resurrect issues originated by dissenters after they have been set aside?
Excoriation or ejection of dissenters is perhaps the pattern most likely to degrade decision quality, because it prevents any future contribution from those ejected, and because it deters others. Does your group focus on the questioner or the question? First in this series | Next in this series Top Next Issue
Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenvDHmOYacZrAchkDTner@ChacRjonMCFyuwMdHtcKoCanyon.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:
- Appreciate Differences
- In group problem solving, diversity of opinion and healthy, reasoned debate ensure that our conclusions
take into account all the difficulties we can anticipate. Lock-step thinking — and limited debate
— expose us to the risk of unanticipated risk.
- The Perils of Piecemeal Analysis: Content
- A team member proposes a solution to the latest show-stopping near-disaster. After extended discussion,
the team decides whether or not to pursue the idea. It's a costly approach, because too often it leads
us to reject unnecessarily some perfectly sound proposals, and to accept others we shouldn't have.
- Teamwork Myths: Formation
- Much of the conventional wisdom about teams is in the form of over-generalized rules of thumb, or myths.
In this first part of our survey of teamwork myths, we examine two myths about forming teams.
- Finding the Third Way
- When a team is divided, and agreement seems out of reach, attempts to resolve the conflict usually focus
on the differences between the contrasting positions. Focusing instead on their similarities can be
a productive technique for reaching agreement.
- Intentionally Unintentional Learning
- Intentional learning is learning we undertake by choice, usually with specific goals. When we're open
to learning not only from those goals, but also from whatever we happen upon, what we learn can have
far greater impact.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming June 27: Interrupting Others in Meetings Safely: I
- In meetings we sometimes feel the need to interrupt others to offer a view or information, or to suggest adjusting the process. But such interruptions carry risk of offense. How can we interrupt others safely? Available here and by RSS on June 27.
- And on July 4: Interrupting Others in Meetings Safely: II
- When we feel the need to interrupt someone who's speaking in a meeting, to offer a view or information, we would do well to consider (and mitigate) the risk of giving offense. Here are some techniques for interrupting the speaker in situations not addressed by the meeting's formal process. Available here and by RSS on July 4.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenYNOOmKDqiSPUidvXner@ChacMRyBiwUzpOuHAudNoCanyon.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 Race to the South Pole: The Power of Agile Development
- On 14 December 1911, four men led by Roald
Amundsen reached the South Pole. Thirty-five days later, Robert F. Scott and four others followed. Amundsen
had won the race to the pole. Amundsen's party returned to base on 26 January 1912. Scott's party perished.
As historical drama, why this happened is interesting enough. Lessons abound. Among the more important
lessons are those that demonstrate the power of the agile approach to project management and product
development. Read more about this program. Here's
a date for this program:
- Ohio National Insurance, 1 Financial Way, Blue Ash, OH: July
Monthly Meeting, Cincinnati
chapter of the International Institute of Business Analysis. Register now.
- Ohio National Insurance, 1 Financial Way, Blue Ash, OH: July 17, Monthly Meeting, Cincinnati chapter of the International Institute of Business Analysis. Register now.
- 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.