Impasses in Group Decision Making: IV

Last time we began examining nonsubstantive impasses that arise from hostage-taking, coercion, and confidential commitments. We now continue our exploration.

Digging in

At times, people can become "dug in" — so publicly committed to their positions that they're unwilling to alter them for fear of humiliation. Their fears might or might not be realistic.

You can avoid this yourself by keeping an open mind, or at least, keeping your own counsel. To help others alter their own strongly held positions, propose a halt in debate, resuming only after everyone has agreed to temporarily advocate a position that is both opposed to their own, and already occupied by someone else. This exercise sometimes gives people the insights and freedom they need to modify their positions.

Currying favor

Some advocates have made no commitment to anyone else, but instead advocate positions favored by particularly powerful individuals, hoping to accumulate recognition and credit. They haven't secured an agreement for a quid pro quo; they're speculating.

Persuading these people of the merits of the issue is unlikely to succeed. They follow the object of their attentions as long as they feel there's a chance of success. To convert them, find ways to persuade them that their strategy is unworkable, or that they're mistaken about the views of the people with whom they've aligned themselves.

Sabotage

Some dissenters seek nothing in terms of the issues at hand, or any other issues, for that matter. Their goal is to prevent the group from reaching decisions of any kind. Perhaps they recognize that anything this group might decide would be inimical to their own goals; or they might want to demonstrate the fecklessness of the group's leadership team.

Their objectives can be varied, but generally, they want to halt all forward progress. Debating the issues with saboteurs is futile from the perspective of finding a solution, but debate can be useful if it can draw the saboteurs into revealing that sabotage is their goal.

Retribution

Dissenters who The harm done by impasses transcends
the relationships of the people
involved, or the project
they're working onfeel that they've been badly treated in the past by this group, or by some members of this group, might seek revenge by blocking forward progress. Here too, the issues are not the issues; rather the issue is the hurt or perceived hurt from some past experience.

Addressing the impasse in this case is likely to be productive only if both parties acknowledge the past hurt. This can be difficult, because most hurts are more symmetric than either party can acknowledge. Even so, acknowledgment is the place to begin. Privacy and discretion are required. Sometimes, acknowledgement isn't possible for one party or the other.

Impasses are expensive. An impasse prevents a decision on the immediate issue, and the delays that follow can delay anything that depends on that decision. If you're determined to block progress, be certain that you appreciate all the consequences. First in this series   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 Workplace Politics:

How to Reject Expert Opinion: II

When groups of decision makers confront complex problems, and they receive opinions from recognized experts, those opinions sometimes conflict with the group's own preferences. What tactics do groups use to reject the opinions of people with relevant expertise?

Devious Political Tactics: Mis- and Disinformation

Practitioners of workplace politics intent on gaining unfair advantage sometimes use misinformation, disinformation, and other information-related tactics. Here's a short catalog of techniques to watch for.

The End-to-End Cost of Meetings: III

Many complain about attending meetings. Certainly meetings can be maddening affairs, and they also cost way more than most of us appreciate. Understanding how much we spend on meetings might help us get control of them. Here's Part III of a survey of some less-appreciated costs.

Embarrassment, Shame, and Guilt at Work: Creation

Three feelings are often confused with each other: embarrassment, shame, and guilt. To understand how to cope with these feelings, begin by understanding what different kinds of situations we use when we create these feelings.

Fractures in Virtual Teams

Virtual teams — teams not co-located — do sometimes encounter difficulties maintaining unity of direction, or even unity of purpose. When they fracture, they do so in particular ways. Bone fractures provide a metaphor useful for guiding interventions.

See also Workplace Politics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

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