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?”