Disagreements in Virtual Meetings

Disagreement is a difference between facts, opinions, preferences, or ideas. For example, I might advocate splitting our team of 24 people into three teams — one of six, and two of nine. If you then advocate splitting our team into three teams of eight, we have a disagreement. When we encounter disagreements at work, we usually resolve them without weaponry or bloodshed. We can do this by employing an array of cultural tools and customs, many of which are so natural that they're outside our awareness.

Most of those tools and customs arose or were designed for face-to-face interactions. But in today's largely virtual work environments these cultural tools and customs don't work as well as they do in face-to-face contexts. Some of us — not all of us — have learned and adopted new ways that are effective in many situations that arise in virtual meetings.

But there are no guarantees. We can still get into trouble, even though everyone involved might be trying their best to make their points in a civil manner. There are some less-than-obvious ways to help groups reach resolutions even though strains have started to appear. Here are a few of the less-frequently mentioned techniques for virtual meetings.

Leave space for someone else to make that point

Leaving space for others to comment or raise questions can sometimes bring about the careful thought that leads to durable decisions. This technique is especially likely to produce welcome results when the issue at hand hasn't been as carefully studied as might be necessary.

Wait for others to express disagreement

When one person There are some less-than-obvious ways
to help groups reach resolutions even
though strains have started to appearraises all the issues relative to the proposal under consideration, there is a risk that such dissent might appear to be motivated by a political agenda or personal animus. Allowing others to raise questions or concerns can sometimes mitigate that risk.

Don't assume that the disagreement has a firm foundation

When parties engage in a debate about an issue, they tend to assume that they themselves understand the issue well. And they attribute the difference in viewpoints to distortions in others' perceptions, due to their ignorance, false beliefs, irrationality, or biases. This phenomenon is known as naïve realism. Three assumptions more likely to be valid are that (a) everyone grasps some of the truth, (b) everyone is misled or confused in some respects, and (c) nobody has a complete and clear-eyed view the entire situation.

Address misinformation and disinformation proactively

Misinformation is false information that arrives by chance and error; disinformation is false information intentionally and knowingly distributed. Although naïve realism is an actual phenomenon, people do sometimes make erroneous judgments based on false information, by whatever path it arrives. If false information is in the air, address it directly and proactively. Arguing with its victims after the damage is done is far less effective.

Allow for political pressures

Some people, in some situations, adopt the views they have because of coercion applied by someone with superior political power. To conceal the facts of their circumstances, they devise complex "arguments" to justify their views. Engaging in debate with people so entangled is unlikely to yield the desired results. Political problems must be solved politically.

Most important, understand the online disinhibition effect. [Suler 2004] Briefly, the environment of the Internet and other interactive media contributes to relaxation of inhibitions that suppress antisocial behavior. When things get out of hand, the environment might have played a starring role. To regard any of the people involved as "out of control" might not be correct. Ironically, telling them so might itself be an example of the online disinhibition effect.  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!

Footnotes

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 Conflict Management:

Deniable Intimidation

Some people achieve or maintain power by intimidating others in deniable ways. Too often, when intimidators succeed, their success rests in part on our unwillingness to resist, or on our lack of skill. By understanding their tactics, and by preparing responses, we can deter intimidators.

Political Framing: Strategies

In organizational politics, one class of toxic tactics is framing — accusing a group or individual by offering interpretations of their actions to knowingly and falsely make them seem responsible for reprehensible or negligent acts. Here are some strategies framers use.

Impasses in Group Decision Making: III

In group decision making, impasses can develop. Some are related to the substance of the issue at hand. With some effort, we can usually resolve substantive impasses. But treating nonsubstantive impasses in the same way doesn't work. Here's why.

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.

Rescheduling: the Politics of Choice

When the current project schedule no longer leads to acceptable results, we must reschedule. When we reschedule, organizational politics can determine the choices we make. Those choices can make the difference between success and a repeat of failure.

See also Conflict Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming October 1: On the Risks of Obscuring Ignorance

A common dilemma in knowledge-based organizations: ask for an explanation, or "fake it" until you can somehow figure it out. The choice between admitting your own ignorance or obscuring it can be a difficult one. It has consequences for both the choice-maker and the organization. Available here and by RSS on October 1.

And on October 8: Responding to Workplace Bullying

Effective responses to bullying sometimes include "pushback tactics" that can deter perpetrators from further bullying. Because perpetrators use some of these same tactics, some people have difficulty employing them. But the need is real. Pushing back works. Available here and by RSS on October 8.

Coaching services

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