In-House Counsel

The Road Not Taken: Strong And Wrong

If you are interacting with someone who invokes the “strong and wrong” technique, do you automatically roll over?

By  
on

man and woman pointing at each other against. Business conflict

“Consider the whole thing as occupational therapy. Power as cottage industry for the mad. The shepherd is slave to the sheep. A gardener is in thrall to his carrots. Only a lunatic would want to be president. These lunatics are created deliberately by those who wish to be presided over. You’ve seen it a thousand times. We create a leader by locating one in the crowd who is standing up. This may well be because there are no chairs or because his knees are fused by arthritis. It doesn’t matter. We designate this victim as a ‘stand-up guy’ by the simple expedient of sitting down around him.”

— Katherine Dunn, “Geek Love”

Katherine Dunn, author of “Geek Love,”  passed away last week. In her masterpiece, one of the characters starts a cult based on his personality and his presentation of his own strong conviction in his beliefs, and uses the power he develops to convince people to act against their own interests. He was strong, but wrong.

We are all familiar with the “strong and wrong” technique. We see it in politics, we see it in relationships, and we see it in our colleagues. “Strong and wrong” is when a person hammers their position so strongly and refuses to entertain any possibilities that deviate from their gospel. By sheer force of will, they attract individual soldiers to their army, who enlist willingly. And despite all the passion and vigor demonstrated by its champion, the position is wrong; whether harmful, unsuccessful, or suboptimal, a different position would have put the champion and advocates in a better place after all is said and done.

To be fair, being strong and wrong is often an effective strategy to get what one wants from others. If you are not sure of your own position, it is easy to go along with the person who is zealous in her conviction. The strength of witnessing conviction in another person replaces one’s own desire for critical thought. It’s also an easy strategy to implement. It does not require great analysis or nuanced persuasion, only a bull-headed persistence.

If you are interacting with someone who invokes the “strong and wrong” technique, do you automatically roll over? Concede due to strategy alone? Of course not. There are different schools of thought as to how to respond to this technique, but like so much in our industry, how to manage a “strong and wrong” colleague depends on the situation.

If the person’s goals do not interfere with your own goals, it may be easier to let the person do your advocacy work for you. That’s easy; no reason to get into a fight on principle. However, it’s when purposes diverge that tempers flare and egos bruise. What about when you are on the opposite side of the “strong and wrong”? In other words, how do you fight back when all you have is being right? For example, if you want to implement an office-wide policy of squeezing the sponge at the communal sink after use, but the people in accounting don’t want to be told how to handle their absorbent materials, you could face a strong and wrong attack by accounting as they defend their right to leave a soggy sponge to mildew in perpetuity. As the champion of change, you have to bring the rest of the office to your side, but those folks in accounting are ferociously dedicated to their cause.

Sponsored

Some people prefer to provide an academic, thoughtful, nuanced response in the face of such conflict. As lawyers, we have been trained to issue spot, identify where a change in facts could cause a change in the analysis, and caveat any position with the usual disclaimers. You could gently assert that a squeezed sponge is a happy sponge and it doesn’t take much effort to squeeze. This strategy is not as compelling as the comfort of a strong belief. Conviction feels better than thinking.

To that end, I recommend fighting like with like. Remember, “strong and wrong” isn’t only for a two-way conversation; it’s a means of persuasion for third parties. Invoke some “strong and right” as part of your arsenal. What does “strong and right” look like? It looks just like “strong and wrong.”

It is a stubborn adherence to your position in the face of perpetual attack. However, because you are “strong and right” instead of “strong and wrong” you will have the quieter analysis as a backup weapon to provide to anyone who desires more information about your position. When Shannon from accounting voices her opinion that everyone is an adult and should treat the sponge as they see fit and if squeezing it is so important, you should just squeeze it yourself, you can respond with equal force that if you really work in an office full of adults, why does the office look like an expelled fraternity provides the cleaning services? Perhaps you don’t have to be quite so childish, but you hold firm. The sponge must be squeezed. For hygiene, for smell, for consideration of others. The status quo cannot stand. When Ann from engineering comes over to ask why you care so much about the stupid sponge, you can explain that the soggy sponge breeds mildew, which causes the kitchen to stink and invalidates the purpose of the sponge itself. You use the quiet explanation for the third party who asks for more details, not as the display of force to publicly advocate for your position.

People want to be feel like the unknown they are selecting is the right choice. An easy way to make that selection is by following the person who is most passionate about his position. This applies in life, work, and to sponges.

In the meantime, if you want a good book to read this summer, pick up “Geek Love.” You may love it, you may hate it, but you will never forget it.

Sponsored

Celeste Harrison Forst has practiced in small and mid-sized firms and is now in-house at a large manufacturing and technology company where she receives daily hugs from her colleagues. You can reach Celeste directly at C.harrisonforst@gmail.com.

Topics

, , , , ,