When people work together in small-ish meetings, participants contribute to the discussion. The purpose of the discussion can vary. It might be surfacing issues, or resolving issues, or making a little progress toward resolving issues. Most participants try to contribute to these discussions constructively. They offer proposals, information, insights — anything they believe might help. But not everyone is entirely altruistic. Many want recognition for their contributions. They want to be valued and appreciated. That's why attribution of contributions is important. And a pattern of contribution misattribution can be damaging to the organization.
When contributions are misattributed — when they're attributed to someone other than the actual contributor(s), or unattributed altogether — something bad can happen. People who seek recognition or who value recognition for their contributions might eventually become cynical, frustrated, or worse. They check out. They contribute less often. They're less likely to think deeply about the problems the team is addressing. They might even attend fewer meetings, or none at all. They adopt a what's-the-use stance.
Three patterns that can exacerbate the problem of contribution misattribution are especially costly. They are theft, rejection/transmigration, and eliding.
- Co-opting and outright theft
- Some ruthless individuals assert originality with respect to ideas that others created or contributed. For example, people who feel insulated from disciplinary action might claim privately to a supervisor or manager that they created what they actually obtained from others. Or they might claim that the piracy occurred in the opposite direction, portraying themselves as victims of credit theft rather than perpetrators of it.
- To detect Some ruthless individuals
assert originality with
respect to ideas that others
created or contributedeven a whiff of this unethical behavior, supervisors must be intimately engaged with group dynamics. Even when they are so engaged, justice demands a careful, open investigation. Because such investigations aren't always politically possible, some supervisors decline to intervene. When that happens, the true victim of the theft pays a heavy price.
- The enterprise also pays a price. When a contribution is misattributed, the enterprise commits itself to supporting individuals other than the true creators of the contribution. When the true creators move on to other activities or other organizations, the enterprise loses access to their talents in their former roles. Meanwhile, the enterprise has "placed a bet on the wrong horse." The perpetrators of the theft might not be capable of producing what many would expect to be a "second act," possibly because they didn't produce the first act. The perpetrators get organizational support, based in part on the Hot Hand Fallacy, but they might be unable to produce value to justify that support.
- Rejection and transmigration
- One anti-pattern that groups sometimes exhibit is what might be called rejection and transmigration. The team rejects one contribution. That's the rejection part. Then later, for the transmigration part, the team incorporates the elements of the rejected idea into a second contribution and adopts that, crediting only the authors of the second contribution.
- An example might clarify the pattern. Someone (Jose) makes a contribution. Call it Contribution-J. The group rejects or dismisses it, possibly even respectfully. Time passes. Maybe in that same meeting, or in a future meeting, someone else (Ella) makes a contribution — Contribution-E — that's essentially identical to Contribution-J, with elements of other ideas that the team had been discussing, and perhaps using different terminology. The team adopts Contribution-E, and attributes it to Ella. The team doesn't attribute any element of Contribution-E to Jose.
- If at some even later date, Contribution-E proves to be an expensive failure, those who championed its adoption sometimes seek protection for their reputations by transferring to others all responsibility for the adoption of Contribution-E. At that point, Jose might find himself "credited" with Contribution-E because it contained so much of Contribution-J.
- The effect on Jose can be damaging to his reputation, of course. But it can be even more damaging to his morale. If he has alternatives to continuing to perform in his current role, the misattribution of his contribution can motivate him to seek opportunities elsewhere.
- Many contributions aren't actually visible. They don't appear to be contributions at all. In effect, the group elides, or skips over the contribution, acknowledging instead another contribution that might not have arisen were it not for the one elided. Some elided contributions are so critical that without them, we can be fairly certain that much collaborative work would stall.
- For example, when someone asks a clarifying question, some other participants who had thought that they understood the substance of the issue might discover that their understanding was incomplete, or incorrect in an important way. When that happens, having asked the question turns out to have been an important contribution. And asking such a question can require some courage, because it exposes the limits of the asker's understanding. Yet, groups acknowledge the value of answering the question more often and more readily than they acknowledge the value of asking it.
- The reverse situation can also be a contribution. For example, when someone makes an assertion or offers an explanation, and the assertion or explanation is incomplete or incorrect in some way, others might ask about it or offer amendments. Usually, we credit the correctors or amenders with having made contributions. But even though the person who offered the incomplete or incorrect statement also contributed, groups tend to value the correction more often than they value the contribution that led to the correction. Stepping forward to offer what one knows can be a courageous act, even if the offerer is mistaken.
- A group's consistent eliding of these contributions can lead to depressed rates of people offering them. And that can make problem-solving more difficult.
Increasing awareness of the frequency of contribution misattribution is a good first step to reducing it. Over a month or so, notice misattributions when they occur. Are there some situations when misattributions are more likely? Is there a trend? Are some groups less likely to misattribute than others are? Food for thought. Top Next Issue
Do you spend your days scurrying from meeting to meeting? Do you ever wonder if all these meetings are really necessary? (They aren't) Or whether there isn't some better way to get this work done? (There is) Read 101 Tips for Effective Meetings to learn how to make meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot more rare. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.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 Meetings:
- The Shape of the Table
- Not only was the meeting running over, but it now seemed that the entire far end of the table was having
its own meeting. Why are some meetings like this?
- Finding the Third Way
- When a team is divided, and agreement seems out of reach, attempts to resolve the conflict usually focus
on the differences between the contrasting positions. Focusing instead on their similarities can be
a productive technique for reaching agreement.
- Meta-Debate at Work
- Workplace discussions sometimes take the form of informal debate, in which parties who initially have
different perspectives try to arrive at a shared perspective. Meta-debate is one way things can go wrong.
- Allocating Airtime: I
- The problem of people who dominate meetings is so serious that we've even devised processes intended
to more fairly allocate speaking time. What's happening here?
- Workplace Memes
- Some patterns of workplace society reduce organizational effectiveness in ways that often escape our
notice. Here are four examples.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming February 1: The Big Power of Little Words
- Big, fancy words, like commensurate or obfuscation, tend to be more noticed than the little everyday words, like yet or best. That might be why the little words can be so much more powerful, steering conversations where their users want them to go. Available here and by RSS on February 1.
- And on February 8: Kerfuffles That Seem Like Something More
- Much of what we regard as political conflict is a series of squabbles commonly called kerfuffles. They captivate us while they're underway, but after a month or two they're forgotten. Why do they happen? Why do they persist? Available here and by RSS on February 8.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.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