Episode #21: Say You Trust Expertise

Call upon expertise to overcome conflict as deadlock

In Episode #1 I introduced Productive Conflict as a tool people can use to build trust. That episode talked about using rhetoric to create an open ideational atmosphere—a place to share ideas—but how can trust be built when people aren’t talking to one another? What are we to do when we find ourselves in a state of deadlock?

Deadlock is one of the quandaries my dissertation was interested in exploring. In short, I wanted to know how professionals use rhetoric to overcome deadlock. Specifically, I asked:

What do people in the workplace say in order to create an open ideational (idea-making) atmosphere when one does not exist?

In my interviews with some exceptional people working at a large biotech company I was able to describe a few rhetorical moves people like you use as a way to leverage trust and overcome deadlock. Today’s post aims to teach you some of those moves.

Our first example comes from an individual in a leadership role who, when faced with that nasty conflict deadlock, found ways to overcome that deadlock by building trust. In this case, he built trust via referral to expertise from the outside.

Here’s Peter, a COO, and the words he used to handle deadlock with a colleague:

“Okay, you and I can’t agree. We’ll have to get a third person to come in, or we’ll bin it as inconclusive."

In this short example we see a model way to make conflict productive. Peter finds himself in disagreement with a colleague, but rather than pushing his ego or title to win the day, he frames that conflict as something impersonal—it’s about the situation, a state of disagreement, not about his person or his perspective.

The next time you find yourself saying “We don’t agree” try following up by saying: “Let’s get another perspective, or, if we can’t, let’s mark this as unresolved.”

In another example, Andrea, Head of Business Development, calls out members within her team to speak up when big issues are on the table. Her approach contrasts Peter’s in that her call to expertise comes from within. Her inner-team call-out to expertise is yet another way to overcome deadlock. Here’s how she phrased her rhetorical move:

I say, “Hey, I know you know about this, you shared this with me offline, can you share it with the group?” I would invite people in—“mix up the pot.”

In this example of team leadership we see yet again how not promoting ego or certifying hierarchy can help teams move beyond deadlock—a conflict of impasse— to find something productive.

Andrea, like Peter, sought out more data to move beyond by impasse by calling upon trusted expertise. By “stirring up the pot” she allowed the conversation to continue and break free from deadlock.

In Peter’s example, the deadlock was overcome by calling in a third (presumably neutral) party to weigh in on the decision. In Andrea’s example, the deadlock was overcome by calling out someone who may have a perspective (like an intern!) but who has yet to contribute, or isn’t contributing as much as one might like.

So, the next time you feel those stress hormones start to flood the body as you feel mired in decisional deadlock, waiting desperately for your colleague to suddenly switch sides and realize your inner brilliance, consider instead a more productive approach:

Who do you know who might have something valuable to add to the conversation? Are they a zoom call away? Are in the room with you?

Use rhetoric to call-in and call-out the expertise of your colleagues. In doing so you show you value, and more importantly, trust expertise over your ego. Teams that see their leaders as someone who listens to expertise are teams that trust eachother in the work they do.

---

SAY THIS: GUIDELINES FOR BREAKING DEADLOCK

• We seem to be stuck. Let’s agree on a finding an outside perspective for help.

• Hey [colleague], you know a lot about [x]. Would you mind sharing your perspective? I think your perspective adds valuable input we need right now.

---