In this Part II of a little collection of conversation irritants that people use to "tweak" each other at work, I emphasize the use of irrelevance and ambiguity. As in Part I, I'm writing this as a field manual designed for someone who wants to dominate and intimidate others at work by using these malicious techniques without getting caught at it. I've written it as if I'm advising you how to converse maliciously, and I'll use the name Charlie for your conversational partner. Keep in mind that I'm writing in this form only for clarity — I'm not advocating the use of these techniques.
Here are three more conversation irritants:
- Make irrelevant additional comments
- Charlie sometimes makes an unconditional assertion, or an unconditional conjecture, as in, "We have an opportunity here to control several emerging markets with our new app generator." To irritate Charlie no end, make a comment — either supportive or contradictory — that deflects the discussion into irrelevance. For example, "Yes, emerging markets present lots of opportunities. I'm thinking flubber here."
- Charlie wanted to start a conversation about the company's app generator. But you've now deflected the conversation into multiple new unrelated vistas, one of which involves the mystical substance called flubber, from the 1997 film of the same name, which was a remake of the 1961 classic, "The Absent-Minded Professor."
- You sounded supportive, because you started your comment with "Yes." But from there you went to someplace crazily irrelevant: flubber. To redirect the flow back to the widget generator, Charlie must take a contradictory position, instead of the visionary position he prefers. He'll feel frustrated, and he might not know why, which can add to his sense of frustration.
- Contradictory irrelevant comments can be just as effective. They create in Charlie an urge to offer a refutation, which takes the conversation further still into irrelevance.
- Use ambiguity as a frustration tool
- Ambiguous comments and ambiguous responses to questions can be especially frustrating for listeners, because they compel listeners to ask for clarification as if they don't understand the comment. For achieving ambiguity, pronouns can be powerful. For example, Charlie might ask, "When did Sheila say Martha thought it would be ready for testing?" You can then respond, "She didn't know exactly, but she says it won't be this week." Using the pronoun she in response to a question about two women is inherently confusing, and therefore quite possibly frustrating for Charlie, who must ask what you mean by she.
- Acronyms, Ambiguous comments and ambiguous
responses to questions can be
especially frustrating for listeners,
because they compel listeners to
ask for clarification as if they
don't understand the commentinitialisms, jargon, and little-used terminology are other tools of confusion and frustration. Those who might be less familiar with the terms you've used must then ask for clarification, which risks appearing ignorant or unschooled. Extra points: use terms that have multiple meanings. Or make up official-sounding terms and use them as if they were real.
- Use placeholder names without referents
- Placeholder names are a category of filler language. Another category of filler language is embolalia, discussed in "Embolalia and Stuff Like That: I," Point Lookout for May 15, 2013. Embolalia are monosyllabic non-words that mark time while we gather our thoughts or while we plan what we're about to say. In English, examples of embolalia are "uh," "um, "er," "like," and "eh."
- Placeholder names usually serve a function similar to that of embolalia, but they're a step or two up the conceptual ladder. They include words such as thingie, thingumebob, thingamajig, whatsit, whatchamacallit, whatnot, gizmo, doohickey, and widget. Or for people, whosit, whatsisname, and whatsername. But in our application, placeholder names can be a tool for generating frustration, when we use them with insufficient indication of their referents — what they're holding their places for.
- For example, when Charlie asks, "What's the meaning of the agenda item 'Resolve the iteration question,'" you can respond, "You know that, Charlie, it's when the app generator blows up for thingamajig iterations." This non-explanation forces him to ask for further clarification. For extra zing, use a condescending tone.
These tactics all rely on a strategy of deniability. They offend, obfuscate, or insult in ways that are difficult for Charlie to call out accusingly, unless he's willing to risk seeming overly sensitive or even paranoid. In that way, they afford you protection while you go about irritating him. 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? 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 Effective Communication at Work:
- Decision-Making and the Straw Man
- In project work, we often make decisions with incomplete information. Sometimes we narrow the options
to a few, examine their strengths and risks, and make a choice. In our deliberations, some advocates
use a technique called the Straw Man fallacy. It threatens the soundness of the decision, and its use
is very common.
- Nasty Questions: I
- Some of the questions we ask each other aren't intended to elicit information from the respondent. Rather,
they're poorly disguised attacks intended to harm the respondent politically, and advance the questioner's
political agenda. Here's part one a catalog of some favorite tactics.
- Virtual Meetings: Dealing with Inattention
- There is much we can do to reduce the incidence of inattention in virtual meetings. Cooperation is required.
- When the Answer Isn't the Point: II
- Sometimes, when we ask questions, we're more interested in eliciting behavior from the person questioned,
rather than answers. Here's Part II of a set of techniques questioners use when the answer to the question
wasn't the point of asking.
- That Was a Yes-or-No Question: II
- When, in the presence of others, someone asks you "a simple yes or no" question, beware. Chances
are that you're confronting a trap. Here's Part II of a set of suggestions for dealing with the yes-or-no
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.