Perhaps you've witnessed destructive collisions between teammates. Destructive collisions can arise from innocent misunderstandings, long-term campaigns to advance careers, spontaneous attacks, or acts of revenge. They can be mildly awkward or intensely damaging. Rarely do they advance the team's work. At best, they slow progress; at worst, they move the team so far from its objectives that success requires redefining the objectives.
Historical debates are one kind of collision in which the issue is who said what, who agreed to what, who decided what, or the like. Historical debates can take place in any medium: face-to-face, email, text, stone tablets, whatever. The exchanges being debated might or might not have been witnessed; there might or might not be a record of the incident or of the exchange. None of that matters.
What does matter is that the past is always debatable. Usually, the debaters' recollections differ; the witnesses' (if any) recollections (if any) differ; and interpretations of any records that might exist likewise differ. The past is always debatable.
Historical debates are difficult to settle. Sadly, many bystanders feel that they aren't involved; the debate concerns only the debaters. These bystanders just, well, stand by, while time, the most precious asset of any team effort, passes.
Other bystanders recognize the damage being done, but feel helpless to resolve the debate. Indeed, they are helpless, or nearly so. These bystanders tend to wait, hoping for a debate fizzle. At best, in meetings, a bystander might intervene to suspend the debate, suggesting, for example, "Can't you take this off line?" The debate might halt for a time, only to arise again later.
Two strategic moves can help teams experiencing repeated historical debates. First, end the debate, permanently, and return to real work. Second, prevent historical debates from arising in the future. Here are two suggestions for accomplishing this.
- Identify the pattern
- When no When no debate is actually
underway, educate the team
about the historical debate
pattern. Explore its
futility and irrelevance.debate is actually underway, educate the team about the historical debate pattern. Explore its futility and irrelevance. Identifying the pattern, and naming it, gives the team a verbal and conceptual vocabulary essential for calling out historical debates when they arise. The existence of that vocabulary can deter people from initiating historical debates.
- Learn how bystanders can intervene
- To end historical debates when they occur, neutral intervention is required. Taking sides usually just intensifies the debate. Instead, bystanders can offer, "Would either of you like to hear how I saw the situation?" Most often, the bystander's view will differ from the views of the debaters. Such offers won't resolve the debates, but they can demonstrate clearly how useless the debates actually are, and that can lead to voluntary suspensions of the exchanges.
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? rbrenIUzljqOchcNFRTWXner@ChacWtmXJcCitkJIoqyJoCanyon.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:
- The Fine Art of Quibbling
- We usually think of quibbling as an innocent swan dive into unnecessary detail, like calculating shares
of a lunch check to the nearest cent. In debate about substantive issues, a detour into quibbling can
be far more threatening — it can indicate much deeper problems.
- On Organizational Coups d'Etat
- If your boss is truly incompetent, or maybe even evil, organizing a coup d'etat might have crossed
your mind. In most cases, it's wise to let it cross on through, all the way. Think of alternative ways out.
- Communication Templates: I
- Some communication patterns are so widely used that nearly everyone in a given cultural group knows
them. These templates demand certain prescribed responses, and societal norms enforce them. In themselves,
they're harmless, but there are risks.
- Workplace Bullying and Workplace Conflict: I
- Bullying is unlike other forms of toxic conflict. That's why the tools we use to address toxic conflict
simply do not work for bullying. In this Part I, we contrast bullying and ordinary toxic conflict.
- Rapid-Fire Attacks
- Someone asks you a question. Within seconds of starting to reply, you're hit with another question,
or a rejection of your reply. Abusively. The pattern repeats. And repeats again. And again. You're being
attacked. What can you do?
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming April 24: Big, Complicated Problems
- Big, complicated problems can be difficult to solve. Even contemplating them can be daunting. But we can survive them if we get advice we can trust, know our resources, recall solutions to past problems, find workarounds, or as a last resort, escape. Available here and by RSS on April 24.
- And on May 1: Full Disclosure
- The term "full disclosure" is now a fairly common phrase, especially in news interviews and in film and fiction thrillers involving government employees or attorneys. It also has relevance in the knowledge workplace, and nuances associated with it can affect your credibility. Available here and by RSS on May 1.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenZQYzdxxEGjKrBreVner@ChacgKNsJPekCGLMdGPFoCanyon.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.