What If We Have to Argue the Other Side's Position?

Imagine that your team has arrived at an impasse.  After a constructive debate about two viable options, the dialogue begins to deteriorate.  People's positions begin to harden, and two polarized camps emerge.  Individuals begin restating their arguments, often forcefully, rather than sharing new information or analysis.  Voices and tensions rise.  What can you do as a team leader in these circumstances?

Here's one interesting strategy you might consider.  I learned about this technique from the leader at a non-profit organization several years ago.  The senior management team had arrived at an impasse.  The leader adjourned a contentious meeting one day by giving team members some homework.  He asked the members in each of the two entrenched camps to come back the next day with a memo and presentation that made the case for the option for which the opposing camp had advocated.  In short, he asked each subgroup to step into the other side's shoes.  

He wanted them to try to understand the other side's perspective, line of reasoning, and assumptions.  He felt that they had stopped listening to each other and ceased trying to understand one another.   Asking them to swap roles could deepen mutual understanding, and in so doing, perhaps help the team uncover common ground or opportunities for compromise.  

In the end, the exercise did not immediately end the impasse, but it led to a much more constructive dialogue and debate.  Ultimately, they chose a course of action with which everyone could live, and for which all team members agreed to cooperate on implementation.  Everyone did not get all that they wanted, but they felt that they had been heard and understood by their colleagues and their leader, and thus, they could commit to the final decision.   

How Might We?

Too often, we find it easy to poke holes in a proposal put forth by colleagues.  We find all the flaws rather easily.  However, we don't provide feedback that actually helps strengthen the proposal, nor do we offer any plausible alternatives.  In those moments, team leaders need to consider what might be the best secret weapon at their disposal. It's a simple question:  How might we?   In those cases, when the discussion is quite negative, focused only the flaws in a particular idea, the leader might interject by asking:  How might we make this idea work?  How might we address the shortcomings that have been identified?  How might we find a different way to achieve the same objectives?  How might we deisgn a test or experiment to validate the assumptions that are being scrutinized here?  The goal with a good "how might we" question should be to encourage the team to consider new possibilities.  Moreover, it should help shift the dialogue and the mindset from "it will never work" to a "maybe we can find a way to get this done."  

Source: Blue Diamond Gallery

The question, of course, presumes that the group agrees on the goals and objectives, but simply disagrees on the path to achieving those outcomes.  What if the team doesn't actually agree on the goals?  Then the leader needs to step back, put aside the proposals on the table, and try to clarify why alignment does not exist.  In some cases, leaders may be taken aback by lack of agreement on core goals and objectives.  It may be because people feared speaking up and expressing their disagreement regarding a particular goal.  A lively dialogue about goals need not be a negative occurrence.  Sometimes, such discussions can really help clarify the strategy moving forward.  From time to time, it's useful to check in and make sure that a team is aligned with regard to the outcomes it is trying to achieve.  A shift or evolution in the goals might just be in order.  

Confronting Unethical Behavior in the Workplace

I recently read a thought-provoking piece by Darden Professor Mary Gentile about what she calls values-based conflicts in the workplace.  Gentile argues that we often hear a series of rationalizations if and when we try to raise concerns about the ethics of certain behavior in organizations. Gentile argues that it is worthwhile to step back and try to understand the nature of the objections and rationalizations. In so doing, one can formulate a more effective response and can speak up more effectively. Here are the questions we should consider according to Gentile: 

• What are the main arguments you are trying to counter? What are the reasons and rationalizations you need to address?
• What’s at stake for the key parties, including those who disagree with you? What’s at stake for you?
• What levers can you use to influence those who disagree with you?
• What is your most powerful and persuasive response to the reasons and rationalizations you need to address? To whom should the argument be made? When and in what context?

I think these four questions are incredibly helpful.   Moroever, I'm particularly interested in the second question.  I think that question pertains to any conflict in the workplace, even if it has nothing to do with ethics.  Suppose you want to question a plan of action proposed by another manager.  Asking yourself what they have at stake in this situation, how invested they are in this plan, can be important, as it may help you understand the extent to which they will be defensive.  Moreover, it will help you understand what might trigger interpersonal friction and conflict in this situation.  If you want to engage others in a productive debate (i.e. constructive conflict), it's crucial to understand how high the stakes are for the other party, to understand where their passion and emotional investment resides.  

Five Great Questions to Ask When a Team is Stuck

Suppose your team is stuck.   The group has discussed two main options for moving forward, but it can't agree on which course of action to pursue.  Two factions have emerged, and the dialogue has become contentious.   People have become entrenched in their positions.  What types of questions can you ask as a leader to help the group become unstuck?  Here are five great questions you might pose to the group:

1.  What other options might we consider, beyond the two proposals currently on the table?

2.  How might our principal rivals in the marketplace look at this issue?  How might they approach it differently?

3.  Are we trying to solve the wrong problem?   What we if we framed the issue and/or defined the problem/opportunity differently?

4.  What if you had to argue for the option that you currently oppose?  What are the main arguments you would make for that course of action and why?

5.  What if you were the CEO of this organization (as opposed to looking at it from the perspective of your division, department, discipline, etc.)? How might you look at this issue differently?