5 ms·

I hate to admit it but one of my bosses taught me that building consensus is a double edged sword and it can be used as weapon. Up until working with him I naiv

I hate to admit it but one of my bosses taught me that building consensus is a double edged sword and it can be used as weapon. Up until working with him I naively assumed we could all get in a room, hash out our technical differences and agree to a solution. That only works when everyone is (from your perspective) not a bad actor. But how do you deal with an Executive Director who will bald-faced lie and say whatever he needs to say to ensure his deadlines are met and your needs are completely ignored? My boss taught me how to pin that ED down and get what I need by documenting everything to exhaustion but also by building consensus around the bad actor so his peers were on board with forcing him to comply. I hope to never find myself in that situation again.

iandanforth 7y ago
Can you provide a detailed (even if fictitious) example?
shostack 7y ago
Can you share more details of the situation? I'm curious what they were lying about and how you pinned them down.
- technofiend 7y ago
  Yes but it's 1 AM here. I'll reply in the morning when I can give a cogent answer.
  - james_s_tayler 7y ago
    When you wake - i'd love to read it too. I want to second the opinion that learning to build consensus is a very, very valuable skill. It's how a lot things really get done. I've never gone so far as to document things extensively or really need to, but it sounds like you learned some very interesting tactics on how to build consensus effectively because you were forced to. Not a fun position to be in, but if you could share the tips that would be valuable.
    - profalseidol 7y ago
      One advice I've read/heard is to make sure to give everyone a chance to give his/her input and address any concerns. It should be done individually so everyone has space. Should a decision be made that was not favorable to one individual, at least it was discussed and was given the chance to give his/her opinion.
      - james_s_tayler 7y ago
        Yeah. It's definitely something that's worth remember is to ask the quiet ones.
  - mettamage 7y ago
    I'm also interested in the reply and putting this comment in as a stub to check back.
- arafalov 7y ago
  I found the book Political Savvy by DeLuca to be quite a good read on this topic. It is very analytical about the political games in a large organization.
- osullivj 7y ago
  "Executive Director" is a clue. That's a common title at investments banks inc JPMC, GS, MS. I suspect the story will recount political machinations typical on Wall St or City of London.
watwut 7y ago
Why do you hate it to admit it? I would like to have this knowledge too. I think that the "how to deal with bad actors" chapter of book is never written or the general advice of "just appease them to avoid them retaliating", then the good actors are not equipped to deal with bad actors.
deadlyst0rm 7y ago
I would really love to read more details about this as well.
notjustanymike 7y ago
Four levels of decision making: Consensus: everyone agrees. Most time consuming. Vote: have two or more appealing options. Majority wins, but everyone is relatively happy with the outcome. Consult: get everyone's input, but ultimately you decide. Dictate: you decide, no external input. Fastest. If you start a meeting by outlining which process you intend to use it helps. All are valid approaches, and depend on the context of the situation. I use consult quite often when deciding on a technical direction.
- gHosts 7y ago
  Consensus is NOT about everyone agrees on the solution... it's about everyone agrees that they have been heard and understood. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
  - vivekseth 7y ago
    That link defines what the IETF means by "rough consensus". In this context, I think it just refers to "general agreement". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
motohagiography 7y ago
Another vote for following it up. These kind of people usually have one tool that works well in that environment because nobody anticipates their level of mendacity. We should start identifying and naming these ploys in categories. The tactics are so diverse and situation specific that the list is too long to be more useful than a bunch of grievances, but their logic that identifies the opportunity to apply the tactic is going to be a very small set. Is it just asserting counterfactuals and betting on the agreeableness of others and your power relationship to them to become implicated in it? e.g. 1. "You're going to have this by thursday." Repeat until people stop challenging you because you are unreasonable or insane. 2. tell a third party, "X told me he would have this by thursday." 3. "If you don't have this by thursday Third Party will hold you accountable and I will not help you." The play seems legitimate because you are driving an issue by getting bigger players to have a stake in the outcome, and making yourself the broker between that power and the delivery team. As awful as it is, some of this is just the lot in life of being on the delivery side instead of the management side.
neilv 7y ago
That there can be bad actors is not an intuitive concept for some people (say, if you were brought up on Mr. Rogers, warm-fuzzy schools, etc.). I was fortunately(?) well into my career before I really encountered bad actors (somehow, I only worked with decent people, until then), and it was shocking where I finally did find it, which would've been the last place I would've suspected. Another thing I learned, after the existence of bad actors, is that, AFAICT, there aren't really that many of them. (Well, outside of some pockets, including aspects of business and politics that expect and embrace a cutthroat environment, and in which professionalism involves calculating game theory of relationships and grabbing advantage.) What's very, very common, however, and I think often mistaken for bad actors, is various kinds of arrogance. Most everyone has at least a bit, in some regards, (I do) and some have a lot. Another way arrogance and bad actors can get conflated, or the lines blurred, happens when a very arrogant party gets in a mess because of that (imagine a powerful person who gets away with a lot, until they don't), or mistakes someone else for a bad actor, and then bad actor behavior is summoned to fix.

iandanforth 7y ago

Can you provide a detailed (even if fictitious) example?

shostack 7y ago

Can you share more details of the situation? I'm curious what they were lying about and how you pinned them down.

technofiend 7y ago
Yes but it's 1 AM here. I'll reply in the morning when I can give a cogent answer.
- james_s_tayler 7y ago
  When you wake - i'd love to read it too. I want to second the opinion that learning to build consensus is a very, very valuable skill. It's how a lot things really get done. I've never gone so far as to document things extensively or really need to, but it sounds like you learned some very interesting tactics on how to build consensus effectively because you were forced to. Not a fun position to be in, but if you could share the tips that would be valuable.
  - profalseidol 7y ago
    One advice I've read/heard is to make sure to give everyone a chance to give his/her input and address any concerns. It should be done individually so everyone has space. Should a decision be made that was not favorable to one individual, at least it was discussed and was given the chance to give his/her opinion.
    - james_s_tayler 7y ago
      Yeah. It's definitely something that's worth remember is to ask the quiet ones.
- mettamage 7y ago
  I'm also interested in the reply and putting this comment in as a stub to check back.
arafalov 7y ago
I found the book Political Savvy by DeLuca to be quite a good read on this topic. It is very analytical about the political games in a large organization.
osullivj 7y ago
"Executive Director" is a clue. That's a common title at investments banks inc JPMC, GS, MS. I suspect the story will recount political machinations typical on Wall St or City of London.

watwut 7y ago

Why do you hate it to admit it? I would like to have this knowledge too. I think that the "how to deal with bad actors" chapter of book is never written or the general advice of "just appease them to avoid them retaliating", then the good actors are not equipped to deal with bad actors.

deadlyst0rm 7y ago

I would really love to read more details about this as well.

notjustanymike 7y ago

Four levels of decision making: Consensus: everyone agrees. Most time consuming. Vote: have two or more appealing options. Majority wins, but everyone is relatively happy with the outcome. Consult: get everyone's input, but ultimately you decide. Dictate: you decide, no external input. Fastest. If you start a meeting by outlining which process you intend to use it helps. All are valid approaches, and depend on the context of the situation. I use consult quite often when deciding on a technical direction.

gHosts 7y ago
Consensus is NOT about everyone agrees on the solution... it's about everyone agrees that they have been heard and understood. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
- vivekseth 7y ago
  That link defines what the IETF means by "rough consensus". In this context, I think it just refers to "general agreement". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

motohagiography 7y ago

Another vote for following it up. These kind of people usually have one tool that works well in that environment because nobody anticipates their level of mendacity. We should start identifying and naming these ploys in categories. The tactics are so diverse and situation specific that the list is too long to be more useful than a bunch of grievances, but their logic that identifies the opportunity to apply the tactic is going to be a very small set. Is it just asserting counterfactuals and betting on the agreeableness of others and your power relationship to them to become implicated in it? e.g. 1. "You're going to have this by thursday." Repeat until people stop challenging you because you are unreasonable or insane. 2. tell a third party, "X told me he would have this by thursday." 3. "If you don't have this by thursday Third Party will hold you accountable and I will not help you." The play seems legitimate because you are driving an issue by getting bigger players to have a stake in the outcome, and making yourself the broker between that power and the delivery team. As awful as it is, some of this is just the lot in life of being on the delivery side instead of the management side.

neilv 7y ago

That there can be bad actors is not an intuitive concept for some people (say, if you were brought up on Mr. Rogers, warm-fuzzy schools, etc.). I was fortunately(?) well into my career before I really encountered bad actors (somehow, I only worked with decent people, until then), and it was shocking where I finally did find it, which would've been the last place I would've suspected. Another thing I learned, after the existence of bad actors, is that, AFAICT, there aren't really that many of them. (Well, outside of some pockets, including aspects of business and politics that expect and embrace a cutthroat environment, and in which professionalism involves calculating game theory of relationships and grabbing advantage.) What's very, very common, however, and I think often mistaken for bad actors, is various kinds of arrogance. Most everyone has at least a bit, in some regards, (I do) and some have a lot. Another way arrogance and bad actors can get conflated, or the lines blurred, happens when a very arrogant party gets in a mess because of that (imagine a powerful person who gets away with a lot, until they don't), or mistakes someone else for a bad actor, and then bad actor behavior is summoned to fix.