ACResolution Magazine

4
3
5

The Enemy is Not Us

When a problem occurs, the natural inclination is to look for someone to blame. However, blaming tends to create defensive posturing and polarization. Now we have two problems, the one we began with and a relationship problem. In reality, there may be many forces contributing to the behaviors we dislike. An important axiom is that for many problems, the enemy is not us. Untangle the issue from the person. Let understanding the issue precede judgment about who is responsible. We try to teach our students critical thinking, and yet we often refrain from applying it in our own situations.

Speak in the Language of Others

At times, administration, students, and faculty speak different languages about the issue. An important tactic is to speak the language of the parties involved. If senior leadership is focused on budget, then frame the issues in terms of budget. If an academic advisor is concerned about retention, then frame the argument in terms of retention.

As Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey explain in How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work,” we need to move from the language of complaint to a language of commitment: “I am committed to the importance of…I’m concerned as you are about… I, like you, would like to see….” Instead of trying to fight the rules or policy, shift the paradigm of how the problem is being talked about.

For example, in a meeting, leaders of academic administration and faculty became entrenched in disagreement about the proper date to begin faculty professional development plans each year. Breaking the stalemate, one faculty member offered, “Let’s match these plans to the fiscal year so we know we’ll have funding for what we are requesting.” All nodded in agreement; this was the common language that everyone understood.

6

Discuss Difficult Issues in Private

Many factors influence the positional dynamics often witnessed in decision-making meetings. If decision makers are seeing a proposal for the first time or if they believe their needs have not been addressed, they will become resistant to constructive discussion. This resistance may be grounded in fear of change or fear of loss. To help reduce these fears, we suggest that important issues be discussed privately before they become public. Choosing when and where to have important conversations allows decision makers to discuss needs that cannot be shared publicly and to reduce the potential face saving in public meetings.

In an era of email, when it is easy to send copies of messages to multiple people in multiple departments, conflict can escalate quickly. This form of communication expands a conflict, it does not contain it. So often, we can reduce stress about an issue by walking down the hall and face-to-face asking for more information or clarification. A personal touch coupled with an attitude of discovery can reduce an otherwise annoying escalation of simple problems. One dean, for example, thought that another school at the university had created a program that conflicted with and compromised an existing program. Emails started to fly, until the second dean walked down the hall and told everyone that there had been a problem with the web page and the program accidentally appeared under the incorrect school.

Appreciate What
Others Bring to
the Table

Disarm your opponents by appreciating what they bring to the discussion. Comments such as “There’s merit in your perspective” or “I can appreciate what you are trying to achieve here” can shift the discussion from “you” and “I” to “we” working together. People who feel understood and appreciated are more likely to be flexible or cooperative. The energy they might have devoted to defense and attack can be devoted instead to joint problem solving. Of course, for this technique to work the words must be attached to actions. We have to be sincere and be willing to earn the trust of others. This takes time and commitment and does not happen quickly.

As simple as it may sound, the words “thank you,” when said with sincerity, are very powerful. It is so easy to become overwhelmed in leadership positions by the daily conflicting demands of the people around us, those we supervise and those we report to. There is both personal emotional power in recognizing the thoughtfulness or good work of others, and building morale by telling others what we specifically appreciate. Both people benefit from an exchange of honest thanks.

We have also found that conflict can be avoided when a leader simply takes responsibility for a mistake. Much like a ship captain being courageous enough to take responsibility for the crew’s actions, this means that the burden of guilt is lifted and the crew can learn from errors. One author uses these words: “I am more than willing to be held 100% responsible for anything I am involved it. Now can we move past blame to solutions?”