Trying to reach a joint decision, a group might find that some of its members are willing to agree to the proposal at hand, but only with conditions. Trouble can arise when this happens, both for the majority and the minority. The trouble can persist beyond the present discussion, preventing the group from reaching agreements on other matters for some time to come.
How can that happen? And what can we do to avoid it?
Let's suppose that for several weeks, Jeff has been objecting to Jessica's proposal. At one meeting, he announces that he now accepts her solution, "in this case." Jeff is expressing his limited agreement. Without saying so explicitly, Jeff's position is that "Jessica's solution will work in this case, but I don't think (or I don't know that) it will work in every case" or possibly "in any other case."
Jeff is indeed helping the group resolve the present issue by finding common ground that can serve as a foundation for further progress. But while he is expressing agreement, it is not without risk. Here are some of those risks.
- Genuine reservations
- Jeff might not have in mind specific objections to general use of Jessica's approach, but he's reserving his right to object to future applications. The disagreement he just resolved can therefore arise again someday.
- Future agreements can be severely threatened if the majority chooses to use Jeff's limited agreement as a precedent. If that happens, Jeff (or any other dissenter) is less likely to offer limited agreement to resolve future disagreements for fear of setting precedents. As a member of the majority, avoid exploiting as precedents any limited agreements by dissenters.
- Distrust and resentment
- Distrusting Jeff's limited agreement, some of the majority might wonder about its boundaries. They might question him about those boundaries, even though Jeff has clearly accepted Jessica's approach for the present issue.
- If that happens, Future agreements can be severely
threatened if the majority chooses
to use limited agreements as precedentsJeff might feel attacked. He has just made a significant contribution to group harmony, and he's being rewarded with an inquisition. Resentments can flourish. If a limited agreement clearly covers the present issue, that's sufficient. Let future issues define its true boundaries.
- Limited agreement proliferation
- In groups that haven't often experienced limited agreement, some members might notice the advantages it affords the consenter. It gives the consenter room to withhold consent on future matters, even if the consenter has no substantive objections in the present instance. Limited agreement can create political capital, because agreement withheld can be useful in future bargaining. More precisely, giving unconditional agreement can surrender political capital unnecessarily.
- This realization can entice other group members to liberally employ limited agreement in future debates, which can create difficulties for the group as it tries to forge agreements on even the most straightforward proposals.
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
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 Workplace Politics:
- Managing Risk Revision
- Prudent risk management begins by accepting the possibility that unpleasant events might actually happen.
But when organizations try to achieve goals that are a bit out of reach, they're often tempted to stretch
resources by revising or denying risks. Here's a tactic for managing risk revision.
- Unwanted Hugs from Strangers
- Some of us have roles at work that expose us to unwanted hugs from people we don't know. After a while,
this experience can be far worse than merely annoying. How can we deal with unwanted hugs from strangers?
- Management Debt: I
- Management debt, like technical debt, arises when we choose paths — usually the lowest-cost paths
— that lead to recurring costs that are typically higher than alternatives. Why do we take on
management debt? How can we pay it down?
- How to Stop Being Overworked: I
- If you feel overworked, you probably are. Here are some tactics for those who want to bring an end to
it, or at least, lighten the load.
- On Badly Written Email
- Even those who aren't great writers do occasionally write clearly, just by chance. But there are some
who consistently produce unintelligible email messages. Why does this happen?
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.
Beware any resource that speaks of "winning" at workplace politics or "defeating" it. You can benefit or not, but there is no score-keeping, and it isn't a game.