Ethical Debate at Work: I

In a more everyday way of speaking, I'd replace "Ethical Debate" in the title of this essay with "Fighting Fair," but the word fighting has baggage. To fight, literally, is to "participate in a violent struggle using weapons or physical blows." In most workplaces, such exchanges are hopefully rare. We often use the term fight to mean debate; to argue — sometimes vehemently — for our respective positions. Weaponry doesn't usually enter the picture.

So when we talk about "fighting fair," we're referring to debating in a style that respects some rules. There aren't many rules, and they're usually unwritten, but one hopes they include things like "no lying," and "no name-calling."

Most people would agree that some behaviors that do occur in workplace debates are toxic: raising voices, stalking out of rooms, slamming doors, abruptly hanging up phones, using all caps in email, and so on. When these things happen, apologies or regrets frequently follow. And so we usually refrain from these actions.

There are other unspoken rules of debate — guidelines, actually — that are less widely recognized, but no less important for organizational health and personal wellbeing. Although some might hold that abiding by these less-widely-recognized guidelines is inadvisable, I've found that groups that do abide by them are happier and achieve higher levels of performance. Here's Part I of a set of suggestions for more ethical debate within your organization.

Share information helpful to your debate partner

Concealing or withholding information that would strengthen your debate partner's position can lead to joint decisions that — while favorable to you — are more likely to be unfavorable for the organization.

If you know something that would strengthen your debate partner's position, offer it. To manage the small risk of seeming condescending, ask permission first: "Hmm, I see what you mean. I think I can make your argument a little stronger. Interested?" If you can't respond effectively when your debate partner has all the facts, your own position might not be as "right" as you believe.

Avoid rhetorical fallacies

Rhetorical fallacies are distracting or logically erroneous verbal artifices that often escape our notice. If you know something that would
strengthen your debate partner's
position, offer itPeople tend not to recognize them as illegitimate forms of argument. Some rhetorical fallacies are actually difficult to understand even when their explanations are carefully laid out. An example: "I don't know why we should listen to Chris on this; look at what happened the last time we took her advice." That's an example of an ad hominem attack. It criticizes the person, instead of the person's argument. For more, see Rhetorical Fallacies.

Rhetorical fallacies usually provide advantages to their users, if you count as an advantage "winning" an argument on specious grounds. But in doing so, rhetorical fallacies can cause some or all parties to a debate to come to incorrect conclusions that lead to catastrophically expensive mistakes.

We'll continue next time with a look at some of the more toxic tactics people use.  Next in this series  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 welcome

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.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

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.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Communication at Work:

Recognizing Hurtful Dismissiveness

"Never mind" can mean anything from "Excuse me, I'm sorry," to, "You lame idiot, it's beyond you," and more. The former is apologetic and courteous. The latter is dismissive and hurtful. We have dozens of verbal tactics for hurting each other dismissively. How can we recognize them?

Start the Meeting with a Check-In

Check-ins give meeting attendees a chance to express satisfaction or surface concerns about how things are going. They're a valuable aid to groups that want to stay on course, or get back on course when needed.

Conceptual Mondegreens

When we disagree about abstractions, such as a problem solution, or a competitor's strategy, the cause can often be misunderstanding the abstraction. That misunderstanding can be a conceptual mondegreen.

Please Reassure Them

When things go wildly wrong, someone is usually designated to investigate and assess the probability of further trouble. That role can be risky. Here are three guidelines for protecting yourself if that role falls to you.

Formulaic Utterances: I

With all due respect is an example of a category of linguistic forms known as formulaic utterances. They differ across languages and cultures, but I speculate that their functions are near universal. In the workplace, using them can be constructive — or not.

See also Effective Communication at Work and Conflict Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 8: Kerfuffles That Seem Like Something More

Much of what we regard as political conflict is a series of squabbles commonly called kerfuffles. They captivate us while they're underway, but after a month or two they're forgotten. Why do they happen? Why do they persist? Available here and by RSS on February 8.

And on February 15: Four Razors for Organizational Behavior

Deviant organizational behavior can harm the people and the organization. In choosing responses, we consider what drives the perpetrators. Considering Malice, Incompetence, Ignorance, and Greed, we can devise four guidelines for making these choices. Available here and by RSS on February 15.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.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 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info