I Could Be Wrong About That

At work, debate is one tool we use to collaborate in decision making. Most debates are informal — rarely is there a clear statement of the debatable premise, and the flow of contributions is relatively free. We tend not to allocate equal time to each participant. We allow ourselves to use rhetorical fallacies, assertions without proof, deception, made-up "facts," intimidation, and threats. Sometimes there is shouting. Sometimes we exclude certain people from the discussion for superficial reasons that hide the truth: we disagree with them and we wish to muffle their voices. The results are predictable. Many of our decisions are defective.

There is another way to go.

Imagine how these debates would go if all participants accepted the possibility that their own views might not be complete or entirely correct. Imagine how these debates would go if all participants adopted this stance:

Given what I now know and understand, I've made a judgment. But I could be wrong about that.

A common objection to this approach is that it might be seen as a sign of weakness that others would exploit to gain acceptance for their views. Certainly, "unilateral disarmament" in the heat of the moment does carry such a risk. But at a time when there's little at stake, a group that works together over a period of time, making many decisions, can adopt this approach thenceforward. If they do, they might find some surprising benefits.

These benefits become available, in part, because the conventional oppositional approach to debate tends to bias what its participants contribute. For example, in an oppositional debate between you and me, if I'm aware or become aware of a weakness in my own position, I might not be inclined to disclose it. And unless you know enough detail about my position to recognize the weakness, you won't raise the issue either. The debate might come to a close without ever addressing the issue. Alternatively, if I'm aware or become aware of a strength in your position, I might not be inclined to mention it. And unless you also recognize it and use it in the debate, the debate can come to a close without ever weighing the significance of the issue. In a more collaborative approach to the debate, points like these are more likely to surface.

The collaborative approach Acknowledging that one
can be mistaken can
be truly liberatingcan be truly liberating. Gone is the burden of preparing defenses of one's own views against anticipated attacks. Taking its place is intellectual curiosity and the urge to discover alternative views. Gone is the burden of seeking objections to the views we believe others hold. Taking its place is intense curiosity about the views they actually do hold — and why.

Debates are more effective and produce more reliable results when they're founded on two fundamental notions.

We do the best we can with what we have

The first notion is the idea that at the outset of the debate, or at any point in the course of the debate, the views of all participants are the best they can be with the knowledge and insight those participants possess at the time. When we can believe this about everyone's views, respect for those views comes more easily.

Learning is no cause for shame

When we experience shame upon getting caught in the act of learning something, we're more likely to avoid getting caught again, or worse, we're more likely to avoid learning. That avoidance makes for difficulty in accepting whatever of value others might have to offer, which reduces debate effectiveness by limiting the value of exchanging views.

For a group trying to reach a joint decision, incorporating these two elements into its microculture yields an important advantage. Instead of participants preparing to defend their own views and attack the views of others, they find themselves seeking joint clarification of all views. And from that mix there usually emerges a new framework — a new collection of ideas and insights — that no participant possessed in toto before the exchange began.

But I could be wrong about that.  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 Workplace Politics:

Stonewalling: I

Stonewalling is a tactic of obstruction used by those who wish to stall the forward progress of some effort. Whether the effort is a rival project, an investigation, or just the work of a colleague, the stonewaller hopes to gain advantage. What can you do about stonewalling?

How to Eliminate Meetings

Reducing the length and frequency of meetings is the holy grail of organizational science. I've attended many meetings on this topic, most of which have come to naught. Here are some radical ideas that could change our lives.

Bottlenecks: II

When some people take on so much work that they become "bottlenecks," they expose the organization to risks. Managing those risks is a first step to ending the bottlenecking pattern.

Comply, Resist, or Exploit?

When we encounter obstacles, we have choices about how we deal with them. Generally, we can comply, we can resist, or sometimes, we can find ways to use the obstacles — to exploit them — to advance to our objectives. The pandemic provides two examples.

Formulaic Utterances: III

Formulaic utterances are phrases that follow a pre-formed template. They're familiar, and they have standard uses. "For example" is an example. In the workplace, some of them can help establish or maintain dominance and credibility. Some do the opposite.

See also Workplace Politics and Workplace Politics 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