Impasses in Group Decision-Making:
by Rick Brenner
Some impasses that develop in group decision-making relate to the substance of the discussion. Some are not substantive, but still present serious obstacles. What can we do about nonsubstantive impasses?
Dry Falls, in Grand County, Washington State. Dry Falls was once one of the greatest waterfalls in Earth's geological history. It was formed after the latest glaciation, about 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, when the melting glaciers created a large lake in western Montana. The glacier formed an ice dam containing the lake, but as the lake grew it eventually broke through the dam, and the suddenly outrushing waters formed what is now Dry Falls. When the falls were active, they were 3.5 miles (5.6 km) wide with a vertical drop of 400 feet (122 m). Compare this to Niagara, at about one mile (1.6 km) by 165 feet (50 m). Western and central Washington state were scoured by this catastrophic flood. The affected area is today known as "scablands."
The harm done by impasses transcends the relationships of the people involved, or the project they're working on. When the impasse finally breaks, people tend to rush around trying to make up for lost time. The work they do is hurried, and probably not of the best quality. The defects that are introduced this way aren't always evident immediately, but like the geological scars of the scablands, they can be long-lasting.
Photo by Jeff Axel courtesy U.S. National Park Service.
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.
- 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.
- 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. Order Now!
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenQoAymLKOWGHWHytpner@ChacEkWlwHBqoqsxTrQZoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email
, or by Web form
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
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.
More articles on Conflict Management:
- Changing the Subject: Part I
- Whether in small group discussions, large meetings, or chats between friends, changing the subject of the conversation can be constructive, mischievous, frustrating, creative, tension relieving, necessary, devious, or outright malicious. What techniques do we use to change the subject, and how can we cope with them?
- Peace's Pieces
- Just as important as keeping the peace with your colleagues is making peace again when it has been broken by strife. Nations have peace treaties. People make up. Here are some tips for making up.
- Discussion Distractions: Part II
- Meetings are less productive than they might be, if we could learn to recognize and prevent the most common distractions. Here is Part II of a small catalog of distractions frequently seen in meetings.
- Political Framing: Communications
- In organizational politics, one class of toxic tactics is framing — accusing a group or individual by offering interpretations of their actions to knowingly and falsely make them seem responsible for reprehensible or negligent acts. Here are some communications tactics framers use.
- Indicators of Lock-In: Part I
- In group decision-making, lock-in occurs when the group persists in adhering to its chosen course even though superior alternatives exist. Lock-in can be disastrous for problem-solving organizations. What are some common indicators of lock-in?
See also Conflict Management and Workplace Politics for more related articles.
Forthcoming Issues of Point Lookout
- Coming September 2: That Was a Yes-or-No Question: Part II
- When, in the presence of others, someone asks you "a simple yes or no" question, beware. Chances are that you're confronting a trap. Here's Part II of a set of suggestions for dealing with the yes-or-no trap. Available here and by RSS on September 2.
- And on September 9: Holding Back: Part I
- When members of teams or groups hold back their efforts toward achieving group goals, schedule and budget problems can arise, along with frustration and destructive intra-group conflict. What causes this behavior? Available here and by RSS on September 9.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates.
Contact Rick for details at rbrenQbuMXHXppJlIdsCIner@ChacnDtWMZUvsfcrMbuXoCanyon.com
or (617) 491-6289, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout
are available in six ebooks:
Reprinting this article
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 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- Ten Project Management Fallacies: The Power of Avoiding Hazards
- Most of what we know about managing projects is useful and effective, but some of what we know "just ain't so." Identifying the fallacies of project management reduces risk and enhances your ability to complete projects successfully. Even more important, avoiding these traps can demonstrate the value and power of the project management profession in general, and your personal capabilities in particular. In this program we describe ten of these beliefs. There are almost certainly many more, but these ten are a good start. We'll explore the situations where these fallacies are most likely to expose projects to risk, and suggest techniques for avoiding them. Read more about this program. Here's an upcoming date for this program:
- Managing in Fluid Environments
- Most people now work in environments that can best be characterized as fluid, because they're subject to continual change. We never know whats coming next. In such environments, managing — teams, projects, groups, departments, or the enterprise — often entails moving from surprise to surprise while somehow staying almost on track. It's a nerve-wracking existence. This program provides numerous tools that help managers who work in fluid environments. Read more about this program. Here are some upcoming dates for this program:
- Download to
your calendarCharleston, South Carolina: October 15, Monthly Meeting, Charleston Chapter of the Project Management Institute. Register now.
- Download to
your calendarMITRE, in Bedford, MA: November 17, Monthly Meeting, Boston SPIN. Register now.
- Wherever you are: it's a webinar: May 4, 2016, Webinar, IT Metrics and Productivity Institute. Register now.
- The Race to the South Pole: The Organizational Politics of Risk Management
- On 14 December 1911, four men led by Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole. Thirty-five days later, Robert F. Scott and four others followed. Amundsen had won the race to the pole. Amundsen's party returned to base on 26 January 1912. Scott's party perished. As historical drama, why this happened is interesting enough. But to organizational leaders, business analysts, project sponsors, and project managers, the story is fascinating. We'll use the history of this event to explore lessons in risk management, its application to organizational efforts, and how workplace politics enters the mix. A fascinating and refreshing look at risk management from the vantage point of history and workplace politics. Read more about this program. Here's an upcoming date for this program:
- Team Development for Leaders
- Teams at work are often teams in name only — they're actually just groups. True teams are able to achieve much higher levels of performance than groups can. In this program, Rick Brenner shows team leads and team sponsors the techniques they need to form their groups into teams, and once they are teams, how to keep them there. Read more about this program. Here's an upcoming date for this program: