The ultimate purpose of managing interpersonal conflict is to grow us emotionally in self-awareness, storytelling, emotional management, and moral and ethical character.
There aren’t any apps, searches, or other fancy technological shortcuts for the development of those traits in us.
Two things are happening simultaneously in our organizational cultures, our markets, and our personal lives.
We have established non-curiosity (“I don’t care how it works, I just want it to work”) as the new standard for engaging with the work, the ideas that interest us (or not) and the world of conflicts that inevitably surround us.
We have also decided that we don’t have the time or emotional or mental bandwidth to care deeply about a topic, person, or idea, and thus we have jettisoned that character trait (caring) as well.
At the same time, for anyone who is interested enough to look, there has been an explosion in the ways that people are explaining what they do, why they do, and—most importantly—how they do it. From videos on the Internet to long-form blog posts, to intentional curation via your email, to documentaries streaming on your over-the-top video player, there are more people taking more time, to explain what they do, to more interested (curious) and caring audiences than ever before.
These two cultural occurrences represent a split and a niching down into time, attention, caring, and curiosity that is dividing audiences, and may well portend a future of less curiosity and caring at mass, and more curation, curiosity, and even care, at the edges of the conflict universe.
The things that matter, the solutions that “stick,” the statements that are meaningful, and the audiences who will care about the impresario’s show, are not going to be found in the immediate, speed driven, bite-sized, mass market.
They will be found at the edges, slowly, over time, and they will be hungering for you to arrive, with your deeply thought out solutions to their most pressing problems.
There is a story (probably apocryphal) that the comedian Louis C.K., burns his jokes, his stand-up material, and his writing after successfully delivering it at the end of each year.
This story reads like a corollary to the idea (popularized through the constant repeating of the alleged actions of the explorer Hernando Cortez upon arriving in the New World) of burning the boats on the beach.
This idea of creative (or not-so-creative) destruction, as a motivator to either exploring further (because there is nowhere else to go) or rebuilding (because everything you built before is destroyed), can be scary for some.
Even for those who believe that they’ve already burned the boats…and the jokes.
What’s never talked about is developing the will and the courage to look at what you have accomplished in the past (i.e. a successful negotiation, a big project, a positive relationship) and ask the two following questions:
What about this could be better than it is now?
Who here will have the courage to change in order to make this thing better?
Having the will to destroy what’s already been created in the pursuit of a better future is the first step toward realizing that better future.
Most, if not all, of the problems and conflicts in organizations, stem from cultural issues, baked in before you started working there.
“This is how we do things here.” (Status quo)
“Isn’t everything going great here?” (False expectations/Poor feedback loop)
“Don’t say anything and it’ll just get ‘better’ on its own.” (Silencing response)
“It’s always been thing way here. Why are you trying to change things now?” (Shaming)
“The last time someone tried that, not only didn’t it work, but they also got fired.” (Threats/Retaliation)
“The pot always gets stirred around here about something.” (Fake/False Conflicts)
The statements represent the issues that can be overcome with courage. But, especially in organizations where the status quo needs to be preserved for people at the top of a hierarchy to “win,” more often than not, statements like those above represent organizational cultures where courage is in short supply.
Baked in fear, power misuse and abuse, failures of courage in leadership, ignoring and avoiding real issues, and denying reality—these are all based in, supported by, and encouraged within cultural milieus that must change.
Or else the future of work, leadership, innovation, and growth will remain far away indeed.
There is value is putting on a show for some audiences.
Without the show, there is no connection. Without the show, there is no invitation to participation. Without the show, there is no permission to be vulnerable in ways that will create value and impact.
Connection.
Permission.
Participation.
Vulnerability.
These are the ingredients for the show to work. The dilemma of the impresario is that she must perform a sacrifice of herself every time she steps up to put on the show.
Without the impresario, there is no show. Without the impresario, there is no opportunity to become a sacrifice for the audience. Without the impresario, there is no on to take responsibility and to be accountable in the event the performance fails.
Opportunity.
Sacrifice.
Responsibility.
Accountability.
The path to becoming an impresario looks wide, but it is really narrow. The road to putting on the show looks easy but is in actuality quite difficult.
Many of us are watching many others put on a show, be impresarios, and then wondering, if only for a brief moment, why we can’t do the same thing.
The path to being an impresario is open and the road to the show is available to any and everybody.
But you have to commit to the work.
The disconnect between what people know about how the Internet (and by extension social media) “works” (choices, behaviors, options, etc.) and what people use the Internet (and social media) to accomplish (tasks) is underrated and massive.
Part of the disconnect comes from a lack of interest and caring about how the world of communication (and the tools in it) work, not only for the people with whom we are immediately communicating but also for the people not part of the communication.
Part of the disconnect comes from distractions that exist in the world of social interactions between people, and differing filters of awareness and attention. Individuals pay attention to all kinds of things that other individuals believe are unnecessary, irrelevant, uninteresting, or even unknowable. And then, because the human mind seeks order out of chaos, individuals, make judgments, create attributions, and create frames and boxes for language and ideas that further the disconnect.
Part of the disconnect comes from a lack of curiosity and even a lack of education about what to pay attention to. Lack of curiosity is endemic in discussion around the Internet (and social media) because our communication tools have prioritized lack of curiosity as the “new normal” in social interactions. Lack of education comes about when the market responds to a lack of curiosity as a new standard, and then complies by providing less nourishing meat (education) and more easily digestible milk (displays where people advance by how well they kiss).
The disconnect is massive and troubling, for two reasons:
In the market’s breakneck race to monetize every human interaction and behavior, combined with the alarming reduction in human economic productivity, we have a recipe for a society and culture where the very tools of educating, enlightening and uplifting are being monetized and controlled by a select few individuals—or organizations.
Which would be fine if those individuals and organizations were angels, but like most people, they’re just people.
The second reason is economic in that we have prioritized facility and adaptation as ways to get ahead in a world of Internet-based (and social media based) communications where competition for attention and awareness is fiercer than ever. But if the average individual is non-curious (or too disinterested or disconnected to care) about where their future dollars to pay their future electric bills are going to come from, then we have opened society to the wavering whims of every political, social, cultural, and economic demagogue (both individual and organizational) promising to make such important decisions “simple.”
“Simple” of course meaning, “Simple in a way that works for me, my power base, and my tribe, and creates distractions, confusion, disillusionment, and disengagement, for you, your power base, and your tribe.”
Which would be fine if those individuals and organizations were angels, but like most people, they’re just people.
A standard of anti-intellectualism comes from a standard of non-curiosity, which combined with the disconnect between people and how they use their new communications tools, leads to the creation of a world of communication, rhetoric, persuasion, and power, we should all be wary of.
To resist the new standard, we need to fight to establish access to education about how to use our new social tools across the disconnect, eliminate distractions as a way to encourage disillusionment and disengagement, and re-establish curiosity about the unknown (or about blind spots) as an alternative “normal.”
Otherwise, the conflict outcomes could be disastrous for everyone.
This post may not apply to you, but consider it a warning:
It doesn’t matter how well-meaning you are.
It doesn’t matter how intentional you are.
It doesn’t matter if, after saying what you said, you respond to another person by saying “Well, you have to understand, that wasn’t what I meant.”
It doesn’t matter if the room and audience you said it in front of, applauded when they heard it because it resonated with them.
It doesn’t matter how much you think you were really talking about something else.
When you publicly recommend a reckoning for transgressions that have been long publicly litigated and litigated to a conclusion that merely “is” (rather than a conclusion that may be considered “just” by any modern conception of resolution), then you might as well bring in the heavy equipment.
Because, invariably, you are going to have to oversee the digging of multiple graves.
Be careful when demanding a reckoning to get to justice.
The equation that drives change is simple:
Dissatisfaction times Vision times First Steps must be greater than the Resistance to the impact of all three combined or else change efforts falter.
There are plenty of dissatisfied people in your workplace, your work group, or even just your organization.
There are people who insist that providing negative feedback is the only way to encourage organizational growth and they provide it liberally.
There are people who have been dissatisfied for years in your organization; who have made brief, or even faltering, attempts at change, but have been stymied and have now surrendered.
There are people inside your organization who claim they are dissatisfied, but who are mimicking the sounds of dissatisfaction as a political power move to angle for a better position at the organizational table.
There are people with vision in your workplace, your work group, and your organization. But this vision is hazy, or they are easily distracted by the next “hot” leadership initiatives, or their vision can be compromised with just a little more money or promotion.
There are people who take first steps and attend training, workshops, and seminars.
They read books and articles, combing the internet for advice and guidance about how to overcome the organizational ennui that holds back change.
There are people who take the same first steps, but their enthusiasm doesn’t go anywhere.
They stop at memorizing the “how-to” listicle and when trying to apply the emotional jujitsu against the resistance in their organizations, they experience limited success.
But these elements, dissatisfaction, vision, and first steps, must be greater than the sum of the organizational resistance to them. Or else, the changes that you are seeking inside of your organization, your work group, or even the team that is inside your sphere of influence, won’t happen.
The resistance to change is pernicious, persistent, and it never gives up. The resistance to change is sneaky and sly and sometimes comes in the form of well-meaning people and situations that appear as though they are helping your cause of change when in reality they are hurting it.
No great change happens without conflict. And no great conflict can happen without the resistance being overcome.
And if you think that it can, then you are bound to wind up stuck in the same place of dissatisfaction where you initially began your change journey.
Change comes upon us gradually.
Change comes in our organizations when we hire one person, and then two, and then more, who think differently about the mission, vision, values, and goals of the organization.
Change comes when the people (or persons) at the top of a hierarchy choose to give up their power over and engage in power with; and, not as a marketing ploy or with lip service.
Change comes when a person in an organization, decides to take a risk, stand up, challenge the status quo respectfully, firmly, and consistently.
Change comes when technology creeps into systems that we once believed were sacrosanct, but are now revealed to be hollow.
Change comes when we are lamenting the things that have passed and are looking with fear at the future that has yet to come.
And then, change is upon us all at once.
And we collectively can’t remember a time when the change wasn’t the norm.
Silence is golden.
It also allows space for people to talk.
And for you to listen.
To actively listen, you must make space for people to talk.