Skip to main content

Search...

For, Against or Both: Why Teams Unite Against Something

For, against or both: people and teams find it easier to unite against something. Winning over the naysayers takes a goal that appeals emotionally.

• • Updated: • 4 min read
Line drawing of a symmetrical arrow knot with lines swinging upward, downward and forward, echoed faintly to the right.

“Being against something is easy!”

(Richard Seidl)

“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” That is how Leo Tolstoy’s classic Anna Karenina begins. The line has stayed with me since a seminar a few months ago, and it is resonating again with something I keep noticing in society, in politics and in companies. For, against or both: it is about what fundamentally motivates people and groups. More specifically, it is about the toward/away-from meta-program. It describes whether people are motivated more by moving toward a goal (toward) or by moving away from something (away from).

Right now we are seeing a lot of controversy and conflict in the world, and the same debate again and again: pro or con, this or that. But what is right or wrong anyway? In many areas, I don’t think that’s easy to answer. For one thing, black and white no longer works as a criterion. The world is complex, full of shades of gray and lots of bright colors, and all of them are “right” in some way. And then there is always the question of when a story begins and when it ends. Depending on where you start, there may be more arguments for one side. Or for the other.

For, Against or Both: The Toward/Away-From Meta-Program in Everyday Life

Beyond that, there is another phenomenon: it is easier to bring people together around an “away from” than around a “toward”. Although that isn’t quite accurate, because behind it there are usually lots of “away froms”. Take the political opposition: it is much easier to be against something than for something. Why? For all sorts of reasons! Rejection unites. One person doesn’t like this, another doesn’t like that. One is afraid of this, another of that. Doesn’t matter. We’re against it!

Getting everyone to pull in the same direction is much harder. You need a common goal that draws people in and unites them, and it should appeal to them emotionally too. You can see how hard that is when opposition parties that have spent years on the sidelines come into government. It quickly becomes obvious that they weren’t so united on the issues after all. The internal squabbling and difficulties begin. What looked so strong before turns out to be a false strength once it comes to contributing something constructive, shaping things and pursuing a shared goal.

Resistance to Retrospectives

It’s no different in our development teams. Let’s do a retrospective! Well, that’s not going to work, because each participant has a reason:

  • no time
  • the previous retros didn’t achieve anything
  • the hierarchy has to be respected
  • we can’t change anything anyway
  • the retro formats are just games
  • the facilitator/coach is useless
  • they’re not going to take advice from that guy anyway
  • …

And now, of course, we can fall right into the argument trap: But look, it’s such a great format, it’ll help us grow! Silence.

In the so-so case, that’s the end of it. In the worst case, the conflict escalates. Arguments, counterarguments, insults, coalitions, opposition. The upshot: a huge waste of time.

How to Deal with Mismatchers

A few ideas for dealing with mismatchers, the people who instinctively sort for the opposite, and with situations like this:

  1. What’s in it for me: We like to argue with the things that matter to US. What’s much more interesting: what does the other person need? Why are they saying no? What are they afraid of? We have to answer the question for them: what’s in it for them?
  2. An emotional goal: We need to develop a goal that draws people in. Ten percent more revenue hardly wins anyone over. Appreciation for their work might. That’s what we need to work out. Start-ups and small companies have a much easier time here, because the purpose of the work, the why, is much closer and more tangible for employees than for a clerk seven management levels down in a large corporation. But even there, you can make the goal emotional!
  3. We might be wrong: Anyone who enters an honest discussion has to be able to live with possibly being wrong. If you already know beforehand that you’re right and just need to convince the others, you won’t get far. Sadly, we seem to have lost the ability to admit that these days.

And maybe a whole new possibility suddenly comes up in the discussion. Could happen, right? No? Well, it’s possible. Just give it a try.

Share this page

Related Posts