A technical debate is a form of workplace conversation in which participants try to reach consensus about a resolution to a question that has significant technical dimensions. For example, the group might be weighing whether or not to include a specific capability in an upcoming release of an existing software product. They'll need to estimate the quantity of work required. And that is fundamentally a technical question.
Some technical debates are actually components of debates of broader scope. In the example above, questions relating to resource availability have important political components. Market considerations also play a role. When debates draw on a wide enough array of different issues, it's common for no single person to have mastery of all issues sufficient to support a decision. A group is necessary. The technical debate is just a component of the larger group debate.
The fundamental problem with group debate
However, in group debate, the level of mastery of any given participant varies across the knowledge domains that play roles in the debate. Mastery is in this way asymmetric. Reaching consensus in asymmetric group debate is tricky business.
The fundamental problem is that the final resolution will be unlikely to exactly match the viewpoint of any single debate participant. Typically, resolutions of asymmetric group debates require each participant to accept elements that they once regarded as "undesirable," though they might employ the word "crazy" more frequently than "undesirable."
A simplified example
Consider In group debate, the level of mastery of any
given participant varies across the knowledge
domains that play roles in the debatean asymmetric group debate between two people. One party to the debate, named T, has superior mastery of the technical issues. The other party, named P, has superior mastery of the political issues. Since we're assuming that a debate is underway, we can consider that T and P disagree on one or more points. And since T has superior technical mastery, we can assume that on technical grounds, T's position is more nearly correct. But T's partner in debate, P, who has superior political mastery, most likely has a position that better accounts for the political needs of the organization.
Both T and P will do well in trying to reach consensus if they employ three guidelines.
- Respect your debate partner's viewpoint
- Both debate partners have valid points, but their perspectives probably won't prevail unchanged in the resolution they ultimately reach. It's likely that some version of each of their respective viewpoints will survive if they each can accommodate some elements of their debate partner's position. For example, P's approach probably is incorrect in some technical factors, while T's approach probably fails to account for important political factors.
- Enter your partner's reference frame
- Both debate partners will more easily agree to modify their viewpoints if they understand the benefits a given modification provides. One way to make this clear to their partners involves a variant of the case method. For example, P can create a case that is both highly plausible and very damaging to T's ability to achieve objectives T holds dear. The case should demonstrate why P's perspective must be taken into account. If T does the same for P, the two can then collaborate to devise a hybrid resolution that addresses all concerns.
- Remove the audience
- Part of the problem of adjusting one's position is the need to explain it to one's own constituency. That process is less confrontational if P and T take the audience out of the picture. Conducting their negotiations privately can make accommodating their partner's concerns easier. And P and T can work together to devise each other's constituency explanations.
In seeking resolutions to asymmetric group debates, a risk arises. That risk is the tendency to seek permanent resolutions when all that's really needed is a resolution good enough for right now. When P & T seek permanent, all-encompassing solutions, the search can become fruitless because it's too constrained. Or the solution they find can be so complex that it's impractical. In today's dynamic markets, seeking permanent solutions to most problems is a fool's errand. I hope we can all agree on that. 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 welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenogMhuqCxAnbfLvzbner@ChacigAthhhYwzZDgxshoCanyon.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.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
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 Problem Solving and Creativity:
- Poverty of Choice by Choice
- Sometimes our own desire not to have choices prevents us from finding creative solutions. Life
can be simpler (if less rich) when we have no choices to make. Why do we accept the same tired solutions,
and how can we tell when we're doing it?
- Assumptions and the Johari Window: II
- The roots of both creative and destructive conflict can often be traced to the differing assumptions
of the parties to the conflict. Here's Part II of an essay on surfacing these differences using a tool
called the Johari window.
- Solutions as Found Art
- Examining the most innovative solutions we've developed for difficult problems, we often find that they
aren't purely new. Many contain pieces of familiar ideas and techniques combined together in new ways.
Accepting this as a starting point can change our approach to problem solving.
- Solving the Problem of Solving Problems
- Problem solving is sometimes difficult when our biases interfere with generating candidate solutions,
or with evaluating candidates we already have. Here are some suggestions for dealing with these biases.
- Why Meetings Go Down Rabbit Holes
- When a meeting goes "down the rabbit hole," it has swerved from the planned topic to detail-purgatory,
problem-solving hell, irrelevance, or worse. All participants, not only the Chair, contribute to the
problem. Why does this happen?
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming December 6: Off-Putting and Conversational Narcissism at Work: III
- Having off-putting interactions is one of four themes of conversational narcissism. Here are seven behavioral patterns that relate to off-putting interactions and how abusers use them to control conversations. Available here and by RSS on December 6.
- And on December 13: Contrary Indicators of Psychological Safety: I
- To take the risks that learning and practicing new ways requires, we all need a sense that trial-and-error approaches are safe. Organizations seeking to improve processes would do well to begin by assessing their level of psychological safety. Available here and by RSS on December 13.
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