In his book, "Games People Play", Dr. Eric Berne describes the game of "Let's You and Him Fight". I see this game played out all the time in office politics. Let's say "Joe" is upset about something that has happened in the office, usually something done by the boss or someone in a position above him. He goes to his colleagues, Sam and Maria, to vent his frustration and to ask for advice. What does he get? Sympathy, for sure. What advice may Sam and Maria provide? "You should file a grievance." "You should go have it out with the person." "You should confront them about that." "You need to stand up for yourself." But is this really the best advice?
Not always.
What I see a lot of times are colleagues who are bored and subconsciously relish the idea of something getting started that they can sit back and watch - comfortably out of the line of fire. Now this is usually subconscious. The person Joe is having a problem with is probably intimidating to or problematic for Sam and Maria as well. Sam and Maria may secretly hope to see the person challenged. They may wish they could stand up to them, but are afraid to for fear of committing career suicide or experiencing other repercussions. So they urge Joe to do it instead. And they may do it with gusto - until Joe asks them to join him in fighting back. Then all the air goes out of them. They have sense enough not to get themselves involved in this brouhaha, but encourage their colleague to go for it.
Another version of the game is played with someone who often plays the Scapegoat role. Carl is upset about a new policy implemented at work. He takes his frustration to his colleagues, Ed and Julia. Now Ed was not originally upset by the new policy. Julia was as incensed as Carl. Julia and Carl complain about it with Ed and Ed starts to become incensed as well. Julia and Carl believe that "someone" should stand up to this nonsense and put their foot down. "Someone" should march in there and talk to the boss and let them know that this is taking it too far. "Someone" should point out how unfair the new policy is to employees. "No one" should have to work in this kind of environment. Ed gets worked up, marches into the boss' office and let's her know how unfair he thinks this is. He states that everyone feels this way and that he believes the policy should be changed. The boss comes out of her office and asks how everyone else feels about this. Julia and Carl smile and say they are fine with it. Ed is now labeled a troublemaker by the boss and his career may be hurt. And for something he didn't even initially care about. Carl and Julia are now mad at him for "outing" what they were saying to the boss. They really wanted him to take on the fight by himself and leave them out of it. How did Ed fall into this trap? Ed is probably the "Scapegoat" in most of his relationships and has played out this same role before.
Do colleagues do this on purpose? Does Ed purposely take on this role? Absolutely not. But it's human nature and most of the behaviors are functioning on the subconscious level. What can you do?
1. Beware of colleagues who try to incite you to fight a battle they are not willing to participate in.
2. Always be aware of whether you actually cared about this issue before talking with your coworkers. If you didn't, it's not your issue. It's theirs. Leave it with them.
If you constantly find yourself in Ed's shoes you may want to read more about the Scapegoat role at work. The book, "Scapegoats at Work: Taking the Bull's-Eye Off Your Back", by John M. Dyckman is an excellent resource for learning more about this detrimental role.