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? rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.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:
- You and I
- In tense discussions, the language we use often contributes to the tension. If we can transform the
statements we make about each other into statements about ourselves, we can eliminate an important source
of tension and stress.
- Logically Illogical
- Discussions in meetings and in written media can get long and complex. When a chain of reasoning gets
long enough, we sometimes make fundamental errors of logic, especially when we're under time pressure.
Here are just a few.
- How Workplace Bullies Use OODA: II
- Workplace bullies who succeed in carrying on their activities over a long period of time are intuitive
users of Boyd's OODA model. Here's Part II of an exploration of how bullies use the model.
- Handling Heat: II
- Heated exchanges in meetings can compromise both the organizational mission and the careers of the meeting's
participants. Here are some tactics for people who aren't chairing the meeting.
- Much of what we call backstabbing is actually just straightforward attack — nasty, unethical,
even evil, but not backstabbing. What is backstabbing?
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.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 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.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.