We have all been there before, looking at the management meeting table while two managers knuckle it out - ok, metaphorically. Very often, the rest of us watched silently, either with an entertained disdained disinterest or with a disguised alertness for anything that can potentially impact our work (disguised because we really don't want to be seen as a possible ally to be co-opted). The only person who can actively intervene is the boss, and they usually sit in the omnipotent silence of that benevolent parent who still thinks they have control over their children while the kids squabble.
First, let's be clear why arguments arise during meetings. Generally, we speak at meetings for two reasons: (i) to provide an accurate account of a relevant development to determine its impact on the organisation and (ii) to provide information to make a particular decision. Sometimes, participants have different ideas about the information provided - the relevance of the information, its likelihood if it is about a future event, or sometimes even about the facts themselves. Arguments aim to resolve which set of conflicting information is to be the one adopted by the meeting for impact assessment or for decision-making. Passion is not the reason why arguments arises in the first place: passion merely affects the way the conflict in the information is presented.
In that sense, most arguments are positive and such alterations usually end agreeably if not amicably. True teams use conflicts like these to generate new ideas, deepen conviction and build intra-group resilience. But management arguments calso end up with a grudging truce and a metaphorical, and sometimes a physical if it gets really bad, handshake conducted behind the facade of professionalism. Some may be more acrimonious, deepening the pre-existing fissures between formal teams and informal cliques.
Managing such an argument from the perspective of the boss is worthy of a series of articles and here, I would only have the space to cover argument techniques that could send the conflict out of control, which the refereeing boss has to be alert for. Remember that the impact of these techniques are situational and differ with the persons involved, whether as persons deploying, receiving, or merely observing, and context in which they are deployed. The list is not conclusive, as I am leaving out the more obvious ones that are common to running meetings (allowing people to talk, avoid getting personal, etc) and I would be happy if anyone wishes to add to it. In this article, I want to discuss some of the less mentioned methods that people use to win arguments, which only add heat but not light to the meeting.
Labeling
Labels are particularly useful in arguments because they carry positive or negative narratives more effectively than you can explain yourself. They are also often loaded with meanings which you can convey without risking losing your audience or the impact of your arguments through lengthly words. I think labels can be fine provided they are limited to conveying only those information that accurately describe the action/object/person in question and nothing more.
Labels, however can be destructive if they increase the emotional level of the discussion without increasing lucidity of the arguments employed. Labels often rely on stereotypes that project a vague impression of something generally reviled rather than providing an accurate description. In this sense, labels are really a lazy shortcut for describing something, a bit like keyboard shortcuts - press space after a lone "c" and a copyright sign appears (ok, only in certain applications); call something 'just a legal argument' and everyone is thinking something technical relevant only to nerds. Labels directed personally are basically name-calling. Used this way, they are aimed to shut down arguments on the basis that the labels have now provided conclusive proof of the validity of their argument. They are used to win arguments, not help the meeting.
As the boss-referee, you will need to intervene if you feel labels are used to win arguments instead of providing further information for decision-making. Intervention can be by a gentle request for a more specific description, delivered in rational measured tones.
Extreming the other argument
I am not sure if that is a word, but basically one way of delegitimising the other argument is by restating the other position further along the spectrum outside the rational mainstream. "C'mon, you are saying that we are ..... [something racist, stupid or conspiratorial]." It works by casting oneself as victim, in effect painting the other person of being unreasonable. It is called the straw man argument as it reduces the opposing argument to a straw man, making it easier to attack than the actual argument.
Here, again, I may need to explain that reframing what another person said in our own words is often necessary to ensure that we have accurately understood their position. The problem is when the reframing is done for the purpose of winning the argument rather than to understand the other position. Often, the person doing the reframing is already emotionally charged, and it is delivered in an annoyed or upset tone. This then could lead to an equally or more emotionally charged response, creating a feedback loop that will soon threaten to go out of control.
The intervention by the boss-referee could involve saying "I don't think anyone in our team is suggesting .... [use as much of the original words as possible]." Avoid use of personal pronouns - he/she/they - that could be interpreted as siding with that party. Again use a gentle measured tone with an opening for the offending person to divert to a related point that is less contentious.
Ultimately, it is the job of the chairman to ensure the meeting is achieving its objectives - whether to assess a new development or to make a decision. Any information that helps the meeting achieve its objectives should be welcome. Yes, even information presented badly or negatively could be helpful - we should not refuse to hear any piece of information just because it would offend somebody. As long as there is a way to manage the negative fallout and there is someone to reframe the information in a more usable, relevant or positive way. The chairman's job is to find that way and that someone. The job is very clear, just not easy is some cases.
Comments