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? rbrencrkpaDGjmyflPunSner@ChacRoDCCqJOGiPoZIJboCanyon.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:
- How We Avoid Making Decisions
- When an important item remains on our To-Do list for a long time, it's possible that we've found ways
to avoid facing it. Some of the ways we do this are so clever that we may be unaware of them. Here's
a collection of techniques we use to avoid engaging difficult problems.
- Let Me Finish, Please
- We use meetings to exchange information and to explore complex issues. In open discussion, we tend to
interrupt each other. Interruptions can be disruptive, distracting, funny, essential, and frustratingly
common. What can we do to limit interruptions without depriving ourselves of their benefits?
- Coincidences Do Happen
- When we notice similarities between events, or possible patterns of events, we often attribute meaning
to them beyond what we can prove. Sometimes we guess right, and sometimes not. How can we improve our guesses?
- Give It Your All
- If you have the time and resources to read this, you probably have a pretty good situation, or you have
what it takes to be looking for one. In many ways, you're one of the fortunate few. Are you making the
most of the wonderful things you have? Are you giving it your all?
- Meeting Troubles: Collaboration
- In some meetings, we collaborate not in reaching objectives, but in preventing our doing so. Here are
three examples of this pattern.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming February 27: Brainstorming and Speedstorming: II
- Recent research into the effectiveness of brainstorming has raised some questions. Motivated to examine alternatives, I ran into speedstorming. Here's Part II of an exploration of the properties of speedstorming. Available here and by RSS on February 27.
- And on March 6: A Pain Scale for Meetings
- Most meetings could be shorter, less frequent, and more productive than they are. Part of the problem is that we don't realize how much we do to get in our own way. If we track the incidents of dysfunctional activity, we can use the data to spot trends and take corrective action. Available here and by RSS on March 6.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenFNILjLzIgMidufwlner@ChacKxPvQpyWhZPgSAkUoCanyon.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.