Contributions in Team Meetings: Advocating

Last time I began an exploration of the kinds of contributions that appear in team debates and discussions. My focus there was the purpose, order, and timing of the contributions and how they could affect the effectiveness of the exchange. In this part of the series, I turn my attention to discussions that emphasize advocating and opposing propositions. Such a Pro-and-Con framework is not necessarily a superior approach to exploring issues, but it's so common that it needs special attention.

The binary adversarial structure

Even in meetings of technical project teams, discussions frequently evolve into a binary adversarial structure when the team is deciding issues about which there are differences of opinion. Possibly this pattern emerges because of the widespread awareness of how the adversarial legal system operates.

In any case, the binary adversarial structure can be limiting and misleading, because issues beyond matters of law aren't necessarily just two-sided. Some issues are resolved by adopting three (or more) propositions, not just one. Some problems have five contributing causes, not just one. Adversarial systems, with starring roles for advocates, opponents, and decision-makers, are ill equipped for these more complex situations.

Following are a series of suggestions for making the adversarial framework more capable of dealing with non-binary discussions

From Advocating to Opposing

In advocating, The binary adversarial structure of many
discussions can be limiting and misleading,
because issues beyond matters of law
aren't necessarily just two-sidedthe contributor provides reasons for supporting the proposition. In opposing, or criticizing, the contributor provides reasons not to support the proposition. For example, the contributor might describe risks, or estimate the costs of those risks. A subset of opposing contributions is offering reasons to support an alternative to the proposition. Another subset involves reasons to defer a decision to support or oppose.

One risk for advocates is excessive focus on advocacy for the proposition, with limited effort invested in understanding the cases opposing the proposition. A dual risk for opponents is excessive focus on criticism, with limited effort invested in understanding and enhancing the cases for the proposition. One consequence of these limitations is underdevelopment of the respective cases of the litigants, by comparison to the level of development they would be afforded if they weren't being developed within an adversarial discussion framework.

From Choruses to Solos

Some binary discussions (for or against the proposition) might be more productive if the group elected to hear only one polarity of contributions for a fixed period, followed by a fixed period dedicated to the other polarity, iterating for as long as the format yields insights. Most binary discussions I've witnessed are mixtures of polarities — both pro and con. They're choruses rather than solos. The format might be effective if the choruses are coordinated. But in many instances, for a given polarity, the choruses lack a conductor, and some of the chorus members are singing from different hymnals. Confusion is a common outcome.

The "solo" format reduces the chances of random eruptions of back-and-forth exchanges around a single point of debate. These random eruptions can waste time for several reasons. An example illustrating the advantages of the solo format: time saved by avoiding random eruptions that can cause the discussion to focus on some issues prematurely and unnecessarily, when an utterly fatal counterpoint not yet expressed would have terminated the exchange if only it had been expressed. A second example: letting the group focus on one polarity enables it to follow and absorb more complex arguments than would be possible in the "chorus" format, which jumps around from issue to issue, and response to response.

From Cacophony to Harmony

Another strategy for increasing productivity of the adversarial format involves imposing restrictions on contributions to make them more harmonious. For example, opponents of the proposition might be required to express positive support for some element of their own case rather than expressing criticism of some element of the advocates' case. In their turn, advocates must provide supporting arguments for some element of their own case rather than criticism of some element of the opponents' case.

These restrictions have the effect of focusing litigants on strengthening their own cases, rather than poking holes in the cases of their adversaries. This makes the tone of the exchange more positive, which can limit costly eruptions of toxic conflict.

From Subjectivity to Objectivity

To make the debates more objective, consider restricting contributions to Facts-only exchanges. In facts-only exchanges, opinions are banned. A fact is defined as a report of an event (or non-event) published in an organ that appears in a previously agreed list of reliable sources. Because this approach to increasing the productivity of discussions requires research, it's most suitable for strategic discussions, and especially for those that span multiple meetings.

An indirect benefit, though, is increasing contact between research and practitioner organizations — between theory and practice. Practitioners adhere more closely to methods proven effective, and researchers investigate questions more likely to have practical import.

Last words

These approaches compel the litigants to consider each other's arguments from perspectives different from what they otherwise might, and more carefully than they otherwise might.   First issue in this series    Next issue in this series   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 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 Effective Meetings:

Have a Program, Not Just an Agenda

In the modern organization, it's common to have meetings in which some people have never met — and some never will. For these meetings, which are often telemeetings, an agenda isn't enough. You need a program.

Remote Facilitation in Synchronous Contexts: II

Facilitators of synchronous distributed meetings — meetings that occur in real time, via telephone or video — encounter problems that facilitators of face-to-face meetings do not. Here's Part II of a little catalog of those problems, and some suggestions for addressing them.

Discussion Distractions: II

Meetings are less productive than they might be, if we could learn to recognize and prevent the most common distractions. Here is Part II of a small catalog of distractions frequently seen in meetings.

Meeting Bullies: Advice for Chairs

Bullying in meetings is difficult to address, because intervention in the moment is inherently public. When bullying happens in meetings, what can you do?

Top Ten Ways to Make Meetings More Effective

Meetings are just about everybody's least favorite part of working in organizations. We can do much better if only we take a few simple steps to improve them. The big one: publish the agenda in advance. Here are nine other steps to improve meetings.

See also Effective Meetings for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming September 17: Workplace Bullying Doesn't Work

A common belief about perpetrators of workplace bullying is that they have an outsized view of themselves and their power. The truth might be rather different. They could be dealing with an addiction cycle — a sense of weakness after the effects of previous bullying incidents have dissipated. Available here and by RSS on September 17.

And on September 24: Time Is Not a Resource

In the project management community, it's often said that time is the most precious resource. Although time is indeed precious, to regard it as a resource — like finance, equipment, or people — can be a dangerous mistake. Time is not a resource. Available here and by RSS on September 24.

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