Asymmetric Group Debate

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.

Last words

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 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 Problem Solving and Creativity:

Breaking the Rules

Many outstanding advances are due to those who broke rules to get things done. And some of those who break rules get fired or disciplined. When is rule breaking a useful tactic?

Call in the Right Expert

When solving a problem is beyond us, we turn to experts, but sometimes we turn to the wrong experts. That can make the problem even worse. Why? How does this happen? What can we do about it?

When Fixing It Doesn't Fix It: I

When complex systems misbehave, a common urge is to find any way at all to end the misbehavior. Succumbing to that urge can be a big mistake. Here's why we succumb.

On Assigning Responsibility for Creating Trouble

When we assign responsibility for troubles that bedevil us, we often make mistakes. We can be misled by language, stereotypes, and the assumptions we make about others.

Nine Brainstorming Demotivators: I

The quality of the output of brainstorming sessions is notoriously variable. One source of variation is the enthusiasm of contributors. Here's Part I of a set of nine phenomena that can limit contributions to brainstorm sessions.

See also Problem Solving and Creativity for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming September 3: Contributions in Team Meetings: Advocating

An agenda in the form of an ordered list of topics might not provide an appropriate framework for a given meeting. For example, if A depends on B, and B depends on A, we must find a way to discuss A and B together in some orderly fashion. Here are some alternatives to linear, ordered agendas. Available here and by RSS on September 3.

And on September 10: Contributions in Team Meetings: Scoping

Some meetings focus on solving specific problems. We call them "working sessions." More often, we delegate problem solving to task teams, while meetings wrestle with the difficult task of identifying or "scoping" problems rather than solving them. Scoping discussions can be perilous. Available here and by RSS on September 10.

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