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? rbrenAsipZaqqydlFSVQdner@ChacSfWwRCLlrjqqtqldoCanyon.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:
- Virtual Communications: III
- Participating in or managing a virtual team presents special communications challenges. Here's Part
III of some guidelines for communicating with members of virtual teams.
- Deliver the Headline First
- When we deliver news at work — status, events, personnel changes, whatever — we sometimes
frame it in a story line format. We start at the beginning and we gradually work up to the point. That
might be the right way to deliver good news, but for everything else, especially bad news, deliver the
headline first, and then offer the details.
- Troublesome Terminology
- The terms we use at work to talk about practices, policies, and procedures are serviceable, for the
most part. But some of them carry connotations and hidden messages that undermine our larger purposes.
- The Limits of Status Reports: I
- Some people erroneously believe that they can request status reports as often as they like, and including
any level of detail they deem necessary. Not so.
- Four Overlooked Email Risks: II
- Email exchanges are notorious for exposing groups to battles that would never occur in face-to-face
conversation. But email has other limitations, less-often discussed, that make managing dialog very
difficult. Here's Part II of an exploration of some of those risks.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming December 12: Effects of Shared Information Bias: II
- Shared information bias is widely believed to lead to bad decisions. But over time, it can erode a group's ability to assess reality accurately. That can lead to a widening gap between reality and the group's perceptions of reality. Available here and by RSS on December 12.
- And on December 19: Embarrassment, Shame, and Guilt at Work: Creation
- Three feelings are often confused with each other: embarrassment, shame, and guilt. To understand how to cope with these feelings, begin by understanding what different kinds of situations we use when we create these feelings. Available here and by RSS on December 19.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenMCbLLWdqNNVtWXvCner@ChacEBPNekiYzKBYdciioCanyon.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.