Ethical Debate at Work: II

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 issue 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.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

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 Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

When It's Just Not Your Job

Has your job become frustrating because the organization has lost its way? Is circumventing the craziness making you crazy too? How can you recover your perspective despite the situation?

Symbolic Self-Completion and Projects

The theory of symbolic self-completion holds that to define themselves, humans sometimes assert indicators of achievement that either they do not have, or that do not mean what they seem to mean. This behavior has consequences for managing project-oriented organizations.

Ending Sidebars

We say that a sidebar is underway in a meeting when two or more meeting participants converse without having been recognized by the chair. Sidebars can be helpful, but they can also be disruptive. How can we end sidebars quickly and politely?

Critical Communications

From time to time, we're responsible for sending critical communications — essential messages that the intended recipients must have. It's a heavy responsibility that can bear some risk. A strategy for managing those risks involves three messages.

Issues-Only Team Meetings

Time spent in regular meetings is productive to the extent that it moves the team closer to its objectives. Because uncovering and clarifying issues is more productive than distributing information or listening to status reports, issues-only team meetings focus energy where it will help most.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.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