Ethical debate at work is the activity most likely to produce outcomes consistent with organizational health and personal wellbeing. Last time, we recommended that debate participants share what they know about the issue at hand, and avoid using rhetorical fallacies. We continue now with recommendations for adopting constructive tactics and avoiding some of the more toxic tactics.
- Acknowledge truths
- Disputing a debate partner's assertion when you know it's true is disingenuous at best, and probably outright dishonest. For example, objecting to a claim because it's invalid in a few cases might be technically correct, but it's misleading. A more ethical stance would be arguing that the claim is too broad, and suggesting a search for a mutually acceptable formulation.
- Acknowledging truths in your debate partner's arguments can begin a search for common ground. It contributes to joint problem solving, steering away from a sequence of attacks and counterattacks.
- Identify misconceptions
- When your debate partner is operating under a misconception — a factual or logical error — identify it, even if doing so strengthens your debate partner's position. Failing to identify it can be tempting because no action is required. Identifying the misconception can guide the debate toward sturdy, valid outcomes. That goal is in jeopardy if one of the debaters is confused.
- Take care, though. Pointing out misconceptions can seem like personal criticism. Tread carefully.
- Don't use personal power
- Danger lies in overwhelming or disarming your debate partner by using your own personal attributes, such as political power, attractiveness, physical size, intellectual capabilities, technical knowledge, or charm. Using force or seduction to compel your debate partner to accept your position probably is not in the interest of the organization.
- Respect your debate partner as you would yourself like to be respected.
- Don't threaten
- Any tactic Respect your debate partner as you
would yourself like to be respectedthat exploits the emotional state of your debate partner could bias the outcome of the debate relative to what would have resulted from a debate focused solely on the merits of the issue. In addition to threats, avoid attacking, accusing, condescending, or intentionally confusing or flustering your debate partner.
- Intentionally creating in your debate partner any emotional state that interferes with clear thinking is ethically questionable. It can lead to outcomes inferior for the organization because they don't fairly represent your partner's interests.
- Avoid bribery
- Offering goods, services, information, or anything of value in exchange for concessions is ethically questionable, and might even be criminal. What is less clear, though, is the ethics of offering concessions in one debate in exchange for receiving concessions in another.
- Such exchanges might benefit all parties to the debate, but harm the organization, because neither of the debates will have been decided on their merits.
Whether any action is ethical can be difficult to decide. One useful test is to ask yourself whether you'd like the world (or your boss, or your CEO) to know what you've done. First 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 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 Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:
- Keep a Not-To-Do List
- Unless you execute all your action items immediately, they probably end up on your To-Do list. Since
they're a source of stress, you'll feel better if you can find a way to avoid acquiring them. Having
a Not-To-Do list reminds you that some things are really not your problem.
- Organizational Firefighting
- Sometimes companies or projects get into trouble, and "fires" erupt one after another. When
this happens, we say we're in "firefighting" mode. But it's more than a metaphor — we
have a lot to learn from wildland firefighters.
- Embolalia and Stuff Like That: I
- When we address others, we sometimes use filler — so-called automatic speech or embolalia —
without thinking. Examples are "uh," "um," and "er," but there are more
complex forms, too. Embolalia are usually harmless, if mildly annoying to some. But sometimes they can
- Listening to Ramblers
- Ramblers are people who can't get to the point. They ramble, they get lost in detail, and listeners
can't follow their logic, if there is any. How can you deal with ramblers while maintaining civility
- High Falutin' Goofy Talk: II
- Speech and writing at work are sometimes little more than high falutin' goofy talk, filled with puff
phrases of unknown meaning and pretentious, tired images. Here's Part II of a collection of phrases
and images to avoid.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming December 18: The Trap of Beautiful Language
- As we assess the validity of others' statements, we risk making a characteristically human error — we confuse the beauty of their language with the reliability of its meaning. We're easily thrown off by alliteration, anaphora, epistrophe, and chiasmus. Available here and by RSS on December 18.
- And on December 25: Disjoint Awareness
- In collaborations, awareness of how our own work might interfere with the work of others is essential. Unless our awareness of others' work — and their awareness of ours — matches reality, the collaboration's objective is at risk. Available here and by RSS on December 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 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.