The Straw Man and the Scarecrow

As politics and political gamesmanship spill over into the workplace and everyday life, people are learning some of the worst political tricks and applying them in team meetings, advocacy, and presentations.

It’s important for leaders to recognize these manipulative practices and to have an antidote that repels them.

Perhaps the most common of these devious practices is the use of the “Straw Man” argument.

When using a Straw Man, an advocate misrepresents or oversimplifies the position of those who disagree with them.

Instead of engaging the actual position or argument, the opposing advocate creates a Straw Man version that is weaker and less defensible. This allows them to persuade others without addressing the merits of the original position.

For example, suppose one team member advocates for bringing a newly created product to customers. In that case, an unscrupulous opponent might argue that this team member wants to rob the existing product of the resources it takes to be successful.

This misrepresents the team member’s position and makes it easier for the opponent to argue against it.

Another example: A team member suggests the group is not discussing issues as candidly and openly as they should. So, they advocate for a process of first stating views without commentary. Only then would the group move to wider discussion.

A colleague employing a Straw Man might counter with the statement: “So, you’re making a case that we need to have more conflict in our team meetings.”

In a Straw Man argument, an advocate raises or refutes a position different from the one proposed without acknowledging the distinction.

While common in political discourse, it is gaining a hold in the workplace because of how often people watch politicians do it.

Another unseemly practice in political circles is called the “Scarecrow” argument.

The Scarecrow argument is a similar tactic where an advocate replaces the strong points of an opponent’s position with extreme, exaggerated, or weaker ones and then denigrates the advocate for believing in it.

For example, if one team member proposes a flexible work-from-home policy to improve work-life balance, a manipulative colleague might suggest that if everyone works from home, then no one will want to come to the office at all, and team cohesion and collaboration will suffer.

Of course, the original position did not suggest everyone would work from home all or most of the time. Yet, the scarecrow argument replaces the original position with something more extreme in order to refute it.

Leaders who are privy to these deceptive practices must protect the honest advocates and the team by calling them out.

The simple expressions, “That is not what they said,” or “You are exaggerating their position” are usually enough to set the record straight and show people they shouldn’t engage in such practices.

Unfortunately, sometimes, the most effective way to destroy the credibility of a viewpoint is to address something else entirely.

Good leaders guard against such manipulation in team discussions. Political tactics have no place in team discourse.