Sunday, March 23, 2014

Relishing Conflict



My last post was about the commitment I've made to getting something positive from every interaction.  The commitment was inspired by the training I received from Verus Global corporation (Verusglobal.com) that was founded by the authors of "Stomp the Elephant in the Workplace" and other books about creating a positive culture at work or at home.  Of all the interactions I've had since this training, there is one kind that appears over and over again that starts off as stressful but ends up as constructive if I handle it correctly.  This is the interaction that occurs when someone objects to one of my proposals.

It happens with my wife, my kids, my volunteer work, and it happens over and over and over again at work.  I have an idea.  I mean well.  I think it's a fine idea.  But someone shoots it down.  Sometimes they aren't very nice about it.  They not only shoot down the idea, but sometimes they seem to be questioning my motives or even my integrity.

I generally find myself welcoming these objections.  I know that almost always the other person means well.  Even if, in some cases, they could have found a nicer way to make their point, almost everyone I know at home or at work who disagrees with me is usually primarily driven by some value, belief, or principle they truly believe.  If I sense sarcasm, it might be my imagination, but even if it isn't, the sarcasm is secondary. What is usually primary is that the other person just doesn't agree.  And if I focus on that core motivation--honest disagreement--then there is a huge opportunity to move ahead.

It's even better if the other person's comments are public.  Because now it's time to react.  If I look past any sarcasm or any words that "hooked" me emotionally, I can re-evaluate my position.  If I still think I'm right, I can explain my position respectfully and persuasively and gain more support from the group that is involved in the discussion.  If, instead, the other person has taught me to see things completely differently and I'm now aligned to their point of view, I gain trust with the group by humbly telling this to the other person and thanking them for their input.  And if, as is usually the case, I find myself with a new proposal that blends both of our points of view, the other person becomes an ally and the group respects the compromise that we've developed.

I've seen this happen dozens of times in the last few weeks.  For example, I'm the President of the community council for my neighborhood in Clifton, and there were over 100 emails going back and forth about my proposal to declare to City Hall what was the "best use" of a vacant property.  This was controversial because an overly aggressive definition of "best use" could scare away so many developers that the property would remain vacant for years.  But every negative email felt to me like an opportunity to bring the group together on a final resolution.  With each objection, the resolution was "tweaked" until finally I felt it was far more effective than it would have been without all the conflict.  I actually found myself looking in my Inbox and feeling glad whenever there was another objection.  I'd often feel a sting if I felt there was some sarcasm or anger in the objection, but the sting was not as strong as the feeling I had that by the time I responded we'd be in a better position than we were before someone said, "NO!!!  I DON'T AGREE!!!"



No comments:

Post a Comment