Stone-Throwers at Meetings: II

As defined last time, a stone-thrower in a meeting is someone who tries to halt forward progress, either for private or political reasons. Stone-throwers use tactics that differ from the tactics of dissenters, who merely disagree with the agenda of the meeting or the general direction of the group. Dissenters express their disagreement forthrightly. They try to persuade the group to take a different path. But when they fail, they go along with the group, or they might exit the group either immediately or in the near term. Dissenters don't obstruct. They don't try to prevent the group from making any kind of forward progress.

Some chairs are incompetent, and their incompetence sometimes induces others to obstruct — to become stone-throwers. Set that case aside for another time. For now, consider only the case of the reasonable, competent chair trying to lead the meeting or the team in a direction that someone — the stone-thrower — objects to.

Stone-throwers obstruct. They're determined not to let the group move forward at all.

So if the chair uses the "Two-Part Sealed Response" described last time, and the stone-thrower persists, additional action is necessary if the chair and presumably the rest of the group want to return to making progress toward the objective. Below is a collection of tactics and strategies for dealing with stone-throwers who persist. In what follows, I'll use the names Stacy or Stan for the stone-thrower, and Charlie or Cheryl for the chair.

Recognize that the stone-thrower's behavior is a performance issue

Dissenting from Stone-throwers obstruct. They're
determined not to let the
group move forward at all.the chair's view of the group's objectives is not a performance issue. Dissent is valuable; the right to dissent must be protected. (See "Appreciate Differences," Point Lookout for March 14, 2001.) But obstruction is a performance issue. Stone throwing is a tactic of obstruction.

Unless Stan is a direct subordinate of Cheryl's, Cheryl must deal with this performance issue through Stan's supervisor. Contact with the supervisor might be direct or indirect or a combination of both, depending on formal and personal relationships. See "Performance Issues for Nonsupervisors," Point Lookout for July 12, 2017, for more about handling performance issues.

For the chair: enlist the assistance of other attendees

If the chair anticipates that a stone-thrower might take action at the next meeting, preparation might help. The chair can ask other attendees to intercede if the chair's interventions prove ineffective during the meeting. Candidate allies of greatest value are those who formally or informally outrank the stone-thrower. Especially effective can be brief comments by these allies directly to Stacy, along the lines of, "Stacy, we've heard what you've been saying, and we need to move on right now, so let's the two of us discuss this afterwards, OK?"

Even attendees of lower rank can be help, but they probably should address the chair rather than the stone-thrower. Example: "Charlie, we already approved the agenda, and Stan's objections would take us back to re-hashing the agenda, so can we please continue with the agenda item we were discussing?"

Monitor lobbying activity

Some stone-throwers engage in "lobbying" activity — contact with meeting attendees outside the meeting context. They do so if they believe they can consolidate a faction that can aid them in obstructing progress. This activity can be most effective when it occurs outside the awareness of the chair.

Cheryl would be wise to alert allies to the possibility that Stan might seek their support outside the meeting context. She can ask her allies to listen to Stan's arguments and pass them along to her in advance of the meeting, to enable her to craft responses and take coordinated, preventive action.

For other attendees: support the chair if support fits for you

Other attendees of lesser formal or informal rank can also play important roles in limiting the effectiveness of the stone-thrower. If it fits, they can support the chair when he or she asks openly for support, as in a vote, or a request for consensus. In discussions of any issues the stone-thrower raises, support can be reasoned and reasonable counterpoints to the stone-thrower's points. Or support can be agreement with closing off of discussions the stone-thrower initiates, or suggestions to close them off.

Opposition to Stacy's views can be politically risky. Attendees who intend to support Charlie in opposing Stacy should be certain that they've managed those risks before accepting them.

Be alert to covert stone throwing

Covert stone throwing can occur in a variety of forms. An experienced political actor pretending not to throw stones might persuade less-experienced or naïve individuals to throw stones without their realizing they're throwing stones. Or someone who seems reasonable, and who has never acted to obstruct progress, might seek a key position leading a sub-team so as to be well positioned to act obstructively. And much more.

When forward progress stalls, even when stone throwing isn't obviously happening, covert stone throwing is a possibility. Chairs would be wise to carefully vet anyone who steps forward to assume leadership responsibilities. And when someone does obstruct, it's best to assume innocent motives until evidence of intentional stone throwing is clear.

Progress in solving difficult problems can be slow or intermittent. Stone throwing is only one of many possible explanations. But when it does happen, set the primary objective aside temporarily. Ending the stone throwing becomes the new primary objective.   First 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 Workplace Politics:

Nasty Questions: I

Some of the questions we ask each other aren't intended to elicit information from the respondent. Rather, they're poorly disguised attacks intended to harm the respondent politically, and advance the questioner's political agenda. Here's part one a catalog of some favorite tactics.

Durable Agreements

People at work often make agreements in which they commit to cooperate — to share resources, to assist each other, or not to harm each other. Some agreements work. Some don't. What makes agreements durable?

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?

Three Levels of Deception at Work

Deception in workplace politics is probably less common than many believe. Still, being ensnared in a deception can be a costly and upsetting experience. A valuable skill is recognizing the three types of deceptions: strategic, operational, and tactical.

Confirmation Bias and Myside Bias

Although we regard ourselves as rational, a well-established body of knowledge shows that rationality plays a less-than-central role in our decision-making process. Confirmation Bias and Myside Bias are two cognitive biases that influence our decisions.

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