Definitions vary, but "throwing a nutty" is a phrase used, sometimes mockingly and affectionately, to describe inappropriate behavior. For example, in a small meeting, when discussion turns to Natalie's frustrating pattern of delivering as promised, but two weeks late, one of the participants, Bert, might deliver a three-minute rant, with steadily increasing voice volume and blood pressure, describing in detail Natalie's secret plot to destroy the company. Everyone else listens, stunned. When Bert realizes what he's done, he falls silent. The conversation resumes, albeit uncomfortably, as if Bert hadn't spoken at all.
Bert has thrown a nutty. Again.
Nutties make most of us uncomfortable. What options are available when someone throws a nutty? In what follows, I'll use the name Bert for the person who's throwing the nutty, and the name Ernie for the person who's trying to figure out how to respond. Here are some suggestions.
- Wait it out
- Waiting quietly and respectfully for the nutty to end is always a choice. Take care, though, not to communicate impatience non-verbally. For example, if Ernie looks at his watch, or starts reading mail on his "personal device," Bert might take offense.
- Use prismatic deflections
- Deflection to new subjects can be effective if it distracts Bert. To work well, though, the deflection must convey respect for Bert by connecting to something in Bert's nutty rant. By analogy with the way a prism decomposes light into its color components, a prismatic deflection draws Bert's attention to something new, built on one element of his rant. Ernie (or someone else) can then deal later with the performance issue of throwing nutties.
- Intervene judiciously
- To intervene is to interrupt Bert, usually to protect Bert from himself. In private, interventions of the form "Are you OK?" can be suitable if Bert and Ernie have Nutties can make some of us
so uncomfortable that we feel
compelled to stop them,
whatever it takes. That's what
makes nutties so contagious.a strong relationship. But if they don't have a strong relationship, and especially if Ernie is subordinate to Bert, such direct offers of assistance might trigger resentment. A prismatic deflection can be a useful alternative.
- If others are present, Ernie's direct intervention can embarrass Bert, even if Ernie and Bert have a strong relationship. Waiting it out or prismatic deflection are then Ernie's best options.
- There's no obligation to join in
- Nutties can make some of us so uncomfortable that we feel compelled to stop them, whatever it takes. This dynamic is what makes nutties so contagious. Harrumphs, screaming matches, hangings-up-of-phones, and stalkings-out-of-rooms can all result from nutty contagion. We aren't obliged to join in another person's nutty. If you aren't in physical danger, try something else.
Throwing nutties is a performance issue. If Bert is your subordinate, address the issue. If Bert is a peer, find a way to get through it. If Bert is your boss, you might have to find a new boss. Top Next Issue
Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.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 Conflict Management:
- Assumptions and the Johari Window: II
- The roots of both creative and destructive conflict can often be traced to the differing assumptions
of the parties to the conflict. Here's Part II of an essay on surfacing these differences using a tool
called the Johari window.
- The True Costs of Indirectness
- Indirect communications are veiled, ambiguous, excessively diplomatic, or conveyed to people other than
the actual target. We often use indirectness to avoid confrontation or to avoid dealing with conflict.
It can be an expensive practice.
- In workplace politics, some people always seem to be seeking information about others, but they give
very little in return. They're pumpers. What can you do to deal with pumpers?
- Impasses in Group Decision-Making: I
- Groups sometimes find that although they cannot agree on the issue at hand in its entirety, they can
agree on some parts of it. Yet, they remain stuck, unable to reach a narrow agreement before moving
on to the more thorny areas. Why does this happen?
- Shame and Bullying
- Targets of bullies sometimes experience intense feelings of shame. Here are some insights that might
restore the ability to think, and maybe end the bullying.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming September 18: The Planning Fallacy and Self-Interest
- A well-known cognitive bias, the planning fallacy, accounts for many unrealistic estimates of project cost and schedule. Overruns are common. But another cognitive bias, and organizational politics, combine with the planning fallacy to make a bad situation even worse. Available here and by RSS on September 18.
- And on September 25: Planning Disappointments
- When we plan projects, we make estimates of total costs and expected delivery dates. Often these estimates are so wrong — in the wrong direction — that we might as well be planning disappointments. Why is this? Available here and by RSS on September 25.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.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 Race to the South Pole: Lessons in Leadership
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. But to organizational leaders, business analysts, project sponsors, and project managers, the story is fascinating. We'll use the history of this event to explore lessons in leadership and its application to organizational efforts. A fascinating and refreshing look at leadership from the vantage point of history. Read more about this program.
Here's a date for this program:
- Baldwin-Wallace University, 275 Eastland Road, Berea, Ohio
44017: November 7,
Kerzner Lecture Series/International Project Management Day, sponsored by Baldwin Wallace University and the Northeast Ohio Chapter of the Project Management Institute.
- Baldwin-Wallace University, 275 Eastland Road, Berea, Ohio 44017: November 7, Kerzner Lecture Series/International Project Management Day, sponsored by Baldwin Wallace University and the Northeast Ohio Chapter of the Project Management Institute. 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.