Contributions in Team Meetings: Scoping

Solving problems does require solutions, but literally searching for solutions isn't necessarily an effective way to find them. The risk is that we might jump to solving the problem before we even make a start at defining the problem. Defining the problem, often called scoping, is the first step in solving it. [Atman, et al 2007]

But scoping a problem can expose intense differences of opinion about what the group is doing and why it's doing it. The unity of the group can be at risk. There are three general areas of conflict that can emerge. (a) Some feel that the proposed scope is too broad; (b) Some feel that the proposed scope is too narrow; and (c) Everyone agrees about the proposed scope, but the agreement is based on unrecognized ambiguity in the proposal. Ambiguity of the scope statement is especially troublesome because it often leads to scope creep.

In discussions of scope, one pattern participants frequently use involves checking whether the proposed scope statement includes or excludes various examples of potential changes to the problem statement at hand. Sometimes these checks are expressly stated. Sometimes they aren't expressed openly. Sometimes participants overlook examples they care about deeply. That's why the pattern of relying on participants to provide examples might not be reliable enough to ensure that the scope discussion uncovers all lurking issues.

Below are three patterns useful for increasing the effectiveness of group debates about problem scoping. In what follows, I use the term proposition to refer to a proposed statement describing the scope of the problem at hand.

From Me to You

"From-Me-to-You" is a solution-generating technique. To apply it to a binary debate, we would begin by asking the parties to abandon their own stances, and then adopt each other's stance. They then continue the debate as a mock debate. When the method works, the parties sincerely try to win the mock debate for their newly adopted stances. They then see value in the other party's stance, often for the first time. When they return to their own personal respective stances, they bring their new insights along. And that makes it easier for them to forge solutions that take account of their partner's concerns.

For non-binary debates — n-ary debates — having each party assume the stances, in turn, of every other party would necessitate running many mock debates. For a three-party debate, we would have three mock debates; for a four-party debate, six mock debates, and so on. The precise number of mock debates is the number of combinations of n things taken two at a time: n!/2/(n-2)! = n * (n-1) / 2. Practicality limits what is possible, so focus the technique on the pairs of litigants that have the most trouble appreciating one another's goals and constraints.

Wishing to Fearing

Scoping a problem can expose intense
differences of opinion about what the
group is doing and why it's doing it

Opponents of the proposition sometimes accuse its advocates of "living in dreamland" or just, "dreaming." They occasionally add suggestions such as, "Call me when you come back to Planet Earth." In defense, advocates respond by asking the proposition's opponents, "Are you afraid of success?" Or, "If we want to be ahead of the pack, we have to take some risks." Advocates are accused of wishing; opponents are accused of fearfulness. Both accusations are usually unjustified.

To express a wish is to describe a state more preferred than the state presented in the proposition, but currently unattainable or excluded by the proposition. However impractical wishes might be, wishes are valuable. They can sometimes show the way to what are often called out-of-the-box solutions.

To express a preference for more caution — or less recklessness — is not to be fearful or timid. Rather, it is an expression of a healthy degree of caution. Implemented as a risk management program, caution is almost certainly essential for success of any proposition that could possibly elicit accusations of fearfulness.

In group debates, the differences between two parties can sometimes be little more than differences between their respective wishes and fears.

Complaining to Whining

A contribution is a complaint if it expresses legitimate dissatisfaction with some aspect of the proposition or its consequences. To be a constructive complaint, it must avoid repetition and include a recommendation that might help alleviate the conditions that led to the complaint.

To whine is also to express dissatisfaction, but the expression is less legitimate than the expression of a complaint. Whining might be repetitious, redundant, trivial, inaccurate, or overstated. Most important, whining omits any recommendation for addressing the issue.

Complaints about processes tend to be of general value to many stakeholders of the process, especially stakeholders who interact with the process in the same way as the person complaining. In this way, the complainant is performing a service for a stakeholder class. Not so with whiners. A whiner is less interested in improving the experience of the process. Rather, whiners might be more concerned with their own personal experience, or with shaming the owners of the process. Those who register complaints seek real change that benefits many; those who whine seek to tarnish the images of a few.

Last words

Other pairs of kinds of contributions abound. Observe the discussions that occur in your organization to uncover pairs that appeal to you and your colleagues. Examples: Visionary to Pragmatic; Objective to Subjective; and Inspiring to Depressing. Those that occur with some frequency are worthy of investigation. What was happening when they arose? What can we learn from that?   First issue in this series   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:

In the Groove

Under stress, we sometimes make choices that we later regret. And we wonder, "Will I ever learn?" Fortunately, the problem usually isn't a failure to learn. Changing just takes practice.

Stonewalling: I

Stonewalling is a tactic of obstruction used by those who wish to stall the forward progress of some effort. Whether the effort is a rival project, an investigation, or just the work of a colleague, the stonewaller hopes to gain advantage. What can you do about stonewalling?

The Advantages of Political Attack: I

In workplace politics, attackers sometimes prevail even when the attacks are specious, and even when the attacker's job performance is substandard. Why are attacks so effective, and how can targets respond effectively?

Biological Mimicry and Workplace Bullying

When targets of bullies decide to stand up to their bullies, to end the harassment, they frequently act before they're really ready. Here's a metaphor that explains the value of waiting for the right time to act.

Handling Heat: II

Heated exchanges in meetings can compromise both the organizational mission and the careers of the meeting's participants. Here are some tactics for people who aren't chairing the meeting.

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