Being right about what you’re questioning doesn’t mean you’re questioning it effectively.

One of the least productive workplace arguments I’ve had started with the word “people.”

Years ago, I was part of a team interviewing candidates individually. During my interview, it became pretty clear that one candidate didn’t seem comfortable with stress, so I told him, “This is a really high-stress, fast-paced environment. Does that sound like the kind of job you’re looking for?”

He shook his head no. I asked whether he wanted to continue the interview, and he decided he didn’t.

Afterward, a coworker came to my cube upset because he believed I had dismissed the candidate. I explained that I hadn’t. I’d described the environment, asked whether it matched what he was looking for, and the candidate chose not to continue.

My coworker then said, “That could upset people around here.”

What he meant was that people might be upset that I had supposedly sent the candidate away.

My response was, “People like who? You?”

From there, we got into an argument that accomplished absolutely nothing.

I still think the underlying question was legitimate. When someone tells you what “people” think, it’s worth wondering whether they’re describing an actual standard or their own reaction.

What I’d change is how I asked it.

Instead of challenging him directly, I could’ve said, “Can you help me understand who you think might be upset by that, or what their concern would be?” Same question. Completely different invitation.

You can question a blanket assertion without making the other person defend it.

Sometimes the most useful part of conflict management isn’t deciding whether to challenge something. It’s figuring out how to challenge it without creating an entirely new conflict.

References: Greenwald J. The Ground Rules in Gestalt Therapy. In: Hatcher C, Himelstein P, eds. The Handbook of Gestalt Therapy. Aronson; 1976:267-280.