Red Flags: I

The use of actual red flags to warn others of looming danger traces back some 400 years that we know of. Seventeenth-century warships flew red flags to indicate they were preparing for imminent military engagement. In some rail systems, before the introduction of colored lights, red semaphores were used to signal trains to stop. That there are many other examples of red flag warnings probably accounts for the use of the term red flag to mean a general indicator of trouble ahead.

A catalog of red flags for workplace collaborations could provide a handy checklist for determining when it might be time to intervene, or shut it down, or perhaps, move on to some other less fraught engagement. In that spirit I offer a list of red flags in three groups. This Part I emphasizes red flags associated with toxic conflict and voluntary turnover. In the next post, I'll describe red flags associated with communication, and in the post after that, red flags associated with abuse of power.

Toxic conflict

Creative conflict in collaborative work is essential to achieving high-quality outcomes. Creative conflict ensures that we test all ideas and account for all relevant viewpoints.

Toxic conflict is something else. In toxic conflict, the participants employ abusive personal attacks and threats, and abuse their political power in their efforts to resolve their differences. Although the group does reach a joint decision regarding the issue at hand, that decision is not based on the merits of the question. Instead, the decision is based on the relative political power of the contenders, and on their willingness and ability to devise tactics that destroy their opponents' careers, or failing that, to curtail their abilities to respond effectively.

If toxic conflict is repeated often enough, or if it occurs in the context of important decisions, it can cause the group to reach decisions that compromise its eventual success.

Capable people finding other things to do

Top contributors and leaders generally have alternatives. They need not remain in any position unless they want to. Because they do move on voluntarily when they learn of opportunities elsewhere, losing capable people occasionally isn't necessarily a red flag. It's the price of hiring capable people.

But an elevated An elevated frequency of capable
people moving on to more appealing
assignments can indicate serious troublefrequency of capable people moving on can indicate serious trouble. Another related indicator can be the inability of the organization to successfully recruit people with required levels of capability. Regard these phenomena as potential indicators that capable people are assessing the organization's health as questionable.

Leadership team volatility

In addition to the loss of capable people described above, there is a special factor associated with the exit of people from leadership positions. Organizational leaders are often aware of conditions that threaten organizational health — conditions that others might not be aware of. In some cases, it is the leader himself or herself who has brought about those conditions.

This privileged insight can cause leaders to make investment decisions that are supposedly prohibited by law. And some investment decisions are legal but revealing, such as a decision not to exercise options to purchase shares in the company. But these matters are usually well cloaked, and although they might indeed be red flags, they're invisible to most people.

In any case, elevated incidence of sudden exits of persons in leadership roles can indicate trouble ahead — or trouble that has already arrived, but which hasn't yet been recognized.

In next week's edition, we'll examine red flags associated with communication.  Next in this series  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

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 Meetings Boil Over

At any time, without warning, you can find yourself in a meeting that boils over. Sometimes tempers rise, then voices rise, and then people yell and scream. What can a team do when meetings threaten to boil over — and when they do?

The Deck Chairs of the Titanic: Task Duration

Much of what we call work is as futile and irrelevant as rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic. We continue our exploration of futile and irrelevant work, this time emphasizing behaviors that extend task duration.

Wacky Words of Wisdom: III

Adages are so elegantly stated that we have difficulty doubting them. Here's Part III of a collection of often-misapplied adages.

Still More Things I've Learned Along the Way

When I have an important insight, or when I'm taught a lesson, I write it down. Here's another batch from my personal collection.

Meets Expectations

Many performance management systems include ratings such as "meets expectations," "exceeds expectations," and "needs improvement." Many find the "meets" rating demoralizing. Why?

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming October 4: Self-Importance and Conversational Narcissism at Work: I

Conversational narcissism is a set of behaviors that participants use to focus the exchange on their own self-interest rather than the shared objective. This post emphasizes the role of these behaviors in advancing a narcissist's sense of self-importance. Available here and by RSS on October 4.

And on October 11: Self-Importance and Conversational Narcissism at Work: II

Self-importance is one of four major themes of conversational narcissism. Knowing how to recognize the patterns of conversational narcissism is a fundamental skill needed for controlling it. Here are eight examples that emphasize self-importance. Available here and by RSS on October 11.

Coaching services

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