“Group Think: They who play it safe, are quick to assasinate what they do not understand.They move in packs. Ingesting more and more fear with every act of hate on one another. They feel most comfortable in groups. Less guilt to swallow. They are us. This is what we have become. Afraid to respect the individual. A single person within a circumstance can move one to change. To love herself. To evolve.”
Thoughts on excuses and accusations in leadership.
Back in College I played a lot of racquetball tournaments and played on the Texas A&M racquetball team. I also coached a few hours a week, sometimes kids, sometimes other students, at the local gyms in College Station Texas. Every once in a while when coaching a newbie who threw me a floater in the middle of the court I’d crush it down the line or do a nice splat. The student would invariably look at me as if I had done something wrong exclaiming:
How am I supposed to GET THAT!?!?! You killed it! I can’t get that!
My answer was always the same.
You can’t get that shot. Nobody can. But THAT shot was not the problem. It was the shot before where you set me up that was the problem. The kill shot was just the part that hurt. Identify the real cause before you howl in indignation. Now lets work on not setting your opponent up, OK?
Running a business over the years I have found that two commonly used fallacies by employees (and by me!) are post hoc and non sequitur. Both of which are Latin phrases and sound all funny to me. How do they relate to business?
Example: an employee is late day after day after day. You work with them. Go through the usual discipline rigmarole. Think thoughts like “wow, they need a parent not a manager.” And eventually the day comes when you hold them accountable. The response:
I was on a church retreat this weekend and overslept today. And if you put work over God that is YOUR problem not mine. You are way out of line to put work over God and family!
It’s important to remember that the employee in this scenario ACTUALLY BELIEVES what they are saying. At a human level it is a mind-blowingly insensitive accusation against a fellow human being, but that is besides the point. The catch here is that “it does not follow.” This particular day it is the presenting problem; the floating ball in the middle of the court. The real issue is that they are late day after day. The accusation that the manager is a heretic bound for hell is simply the presenting problem. You, the manager, did nothing wrong.
Yet the employee believes what they said!
In my experience there is only one solution. Educate them on fallacies and communication BEFORE they use them on you. It doesn’t always work, but at least it might. Education is the first step. Â BecauseÂ common fallacies are, well, common. Read on my fellow leaders, and cut yourself some slack. It really isn’t you. It was the shot where they set you up that caused the problem.
Caesar. Ha! who calls?
Casca. Bid every noise be still: peace yet again!
Caesar. Who is it in the press that calls on me? 100
I hear a tongue, shriller than all the music,
Cry ‘Caesar!’ Speak; Caesar is turn’d to hear.
Soothsayer. Beware the ides of March.
Caesar. What man is that?
Brutus. A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March. 105
Caesar. Set him before me; let me see his face.
Cassius. Fellow, come from the throng; look upon Caesar.
Caesar. What say’st thou to me now? speak once again.
Soothsayer. Beware the ides of March.
Caesar. He is a dreamer; let us leave him: pass.
“When one is acting under the rule of dissociated impulses, everybody except the individual himself knows and perceives what is happening. The individual who is stingy and mean in certain relationships will persist in perceiving himself as generous and kind. Similarly the individual who has trouble getting close to people may compensate for this deficiency with a pseudo friendliness and overt joviality (a common cultural trait, characteristic of many Americans, that is recognized all over the world).”
– Beyond Culture, Edward T. Hall, pg 234
“There also is a fallacy in the assumption that all wants must be satisfied to minimize discontent. Discontent is not a function of the discrepancy between what men want and what they have, but between what they want and what they believe they are capable of attaining. If their means are few or threatened, they are likely to revolt; if they obtain new means they can work to satisfy their wants.
Concessions also can have unintended effects, however. Temporary palliatives are likely to reinforce a return to violence once their narcotic effect wears off. If men fight to preserve what they have, concessions that remove the threat to it are sufficient. If they rebel to satisfy new or intensified expectations, the only efffective concession is to provide them with the means adequate to those expectations…
But political violence is comprehensible, which should make it neither necessary nor inevitable, but capable of resolution”
– Why Men Rebel, Ted Robert Gurr, pg 359