Group dynamics, tact, and honesty (seeking advice)

Post Reply New Topic

I may have to deal with some blowback on Monday from confronting a person about her repeated failure or refusal to do what she said that she would do. I may have used less tact than some people could have, but I kept my comments strictly factual. She chose to deflect, and then took the opportunity to resign from the position whose responsibilities she had failed to meet.

I feel unapologetic, and view the resignation as inevitable, considering the personal factors which provided both valid reasons and poor excuses for her shortcomings as an executive (executives need to learn to delegate, after all). I also see this situation as an opportunity to make myself look like a complete jerk just for stating the obvious, and I'd like to avoid that.​

When the executive board members meet on Monday, we'll easily figure out a way to manage without our former president, but some people may want to discuss the conversation/argument that precipitated it. I suspect that some of them will have already heard her side of the story and discussed it at length, so if attacked I will start at a disadvantage.

Can you suggest any ways that I can temper my unapologetic stance without excessive hypocrisy?

I would keep your answers completely factual, while making no personal comments whatsoever. If the past convo does come up, support it with how the executive's actions affected work negatively as a whole (lack of productivity, etc.) Keep everything focused on actions, and possible solutions.
Good luck.

Thanks. That's kind of what I have in mind, although I feel like I have to walk a tightrope when speaking factually about her unwillingness or inability to delegate. I guess the most productive phrasing might be. "she did not delegate despite people's repeated offers to help, but took responsibilities on herself and then failed to meet those obligations. She then failed to provide me with the materials that I needed to give the help that she reluctantly said she would allow me to give."

It's possible people could talk her out of resigning. If they criticize you, you could ask them "how would you suggest it be handled?"

I hope that they don't, for her sake, and for the group's. She needs to focus on her health and other obligations. She has had a hard time staying emotionally stable. If I can keep a good working relationship with the rest of the board, I'll feel satisfied.

That's a good goal. If you have a problem with them, you could let them know you are open to input. Good luck with Monday. Maybe they agree with you.

If someone asks you, I'd keep it shorter, maybe something like, '______ is important. And she kind of wasn't letting other people help.'

Now, the other dynamic, some people may treat you as a giant-slayer and brag on you, and that can get out of hand, too. Try and take the high road to the extent possible. Maybe say, 'She has a lot of talent. Just has some health issues.' And only disclose what's common knowledge.

Keeping it simple does reduce the chances of an arrogant tone creeping in. I'll try to do that, and I won't let anyone aggrandize me just for doing something simple and necessary.

As it happened, the other board members had the same basic complaints that I voiced. The prez did not show up to the meeting, but the rest of us agreed to work together to move the organization forward in a more democratic manner.

Oh, wow, that sounds pretty good.

So, it's a fresh page.

As it happens, she did not resign. Then she failed to take care of any business or communicate with any other board members for a couple of weeks. Now she has reappeared to tell us about an event that one board member absolutely has to attend for the university to allow our group to continue, and it's happening tomorrow. You can predict that she considered my measured response tactless.

I came back to this thread to review all the advice that people had given me previously, as it looks like we'll have another executive board meeting tonight after the regular member meeting. Then I thought I might as well update anyone who's interested, and use the opportunity to organize my thoughts, as well. I'll report back later on.

That was a messed-up half hour. The worst part is that I never expected that the people involved would prefer to talk about me than talk to me. As far as the meeting went, they clearly felt that I had gone over the line and expected me to agree. I listened to their criticism, and all I heard was that they would have handled it differently. But in fact, they hadn't handled it at all.

Apparently, they just got angrier as I listened to their critique and thanked them for it, and the only thing they wanted from me was an apology, which I have no intention to give as long as the person I offended continues to fail to mend her behavior.

Style counts for more than substance, as far as I can tell.

As they got angrier and less reasonable, I lost my focus too and just started ignoring their outbursts and trying to respond to the factual statements, which became more and more scarce. I didn't think that I had taken out the flamethrower, but they seem to think that I did. I'll consider it.

I think that equals can have heated arguments and criticize each other for specific behavior. If people don't respond to polite requests, then confrontations will happen. They seem to think that their world of passing notes around about people that they've come up with in organizations since high school represents the real world of business. Maybe it does in the rural South. Heck, maybe it does in the NT world. I hope not.

I just need to forget about this evening, and everything about today that didn't involve scientific principles. I'll think about it again after finals, so I may try to avoid looking at this thread for the next 10 days. For that, I'll apologize.

Edited to add: While the above may be the wisest course of action, I can't actually do that. I'd probably continue to feel upset about this until I get it all sorted out in my head.

Further edited to add: I decided that an apology costs nothing, and that I could apologize for my tone and the damage that it caused without retracting my criticism, although I certainly left that last bit out of my apology. Based on my three-hour long inner debate about the situation, I decided that I should sincerely apologize for my clear failure to meet the prevailing social standards for civil discourse.

I decided to reserve my disagreement with those bizarre and contradictory standards for spaces like this, where I have some reasonable expectation of people understanding my feelings about those standards.

Further edited after a night's sleep: I woke up pretty enraged over the entire situation. I still think that I made the right choice by apologizing, but I have a lot more of a problem with the perfidiousness of the other officers. Their facts change with their emotions, and their emotions change based on the level of philosophical agreement they feel with people, and they have a shallow philosophy. I think the main lesson is that I need to increase my skepticism about any kind of apparently factual information that people deliver until I see how their emotions tend to distort it.

Even more further edited: One lesson from this: learn to recognize emotional as distinct from factual communication and understand that any facts conveyed in an emotional communication may be subject to change without notice.