write a discussion (th)

from S. Leas (1982). Leadership & Conflict. Nashville: Abingdon Press. (63-86).

V

Surfacing Submerged Conflict

Perhaps as damaging to an organization’s life as blatant fighting and contention is covert, underground dissention. Rumor, hidden activities, talking people or groups “behind their backs,” and work that is at cross-purposes are all symptoms of such unhealthy strife. In this situation the leader’s skills and wisdom are profoundly necessary. A leader who is uncomfortable with dissention, who is unable to encourage others to express their differences, who negatively judges those who do surface disagreements is going to cause even more organizational difficulty. As I was writing this chapter I got a phone call from a bishop about a situation in a church where the vestry (church governing body) asked for the pastor’s resignation after eight months of his ministry. U had spoken with the pastor by phone on about six occasions over the last two months. I learned from him and the bishop that the pastor had had several negative and uncomfortable experiences with some of the people in the congregation. On one occasion he suggested that it would not be a good idea for one particular couple to get married. He based this on some testing that he had done with them in premarital counseling. Also, he had not done certain parts of his work and had had a rather vigorous disagreement with the organist which ended with her resignation. To hear the story from the bishop and from the pastor, the people in this congregation who are uncomfortable with the pastor had taken their grievances to one another rather than speaking directly to him. Their dissatisfaction led, after eight months, to a vestry meeting to which the pastor was not invited and then to the senior warden (chairperson of the vestry) requesting the pastor to resign. When the pastor refused to resign, the bishop was asked to come to a vestry meeting. At that meeting the pastor was asked to leave the meeting and the vestry submitted their complaints to the bishop, hoping he would join them in their assessment that this was the wrong priest for their congregation. The process used to manage conflict at this church is very common in organizations. The people did not tell those whom with they were dissatisfied what their problems were. Indeed, this program was continued when the vestry and bishop asked the priest to leave. So the problems were not dealt with.

Further, the leadership committee of the congregation is not trying to make a decision for the congregation without involving the larger group in any way in that decision. What is likely to happen if the pastor resigns (especially if he lets it be known to those who support him that he was railroaded out of the job) is that those who didn’t know what was happening would be angry. They were not given a chance to have a say in the decision, and the organization will be left with a new conflict between those who felt something was put over on them and those who felt they had to make a responsible leadership decision for the congregation. One of the things that is being said in that congregation is, “If we include others in the conversation, if we tell them what is going on and what our dissatisfactions are, it will increase the conflict: it may cause new conflicts that do not presently exist.” That reasoning puts the vestry in a no-win situation because they will have the conflict if they get from the bishop what they want (i.e. pressure on the pastor to resign), and the pastor’s supporters perceive that they have had no opportunity to defend him or hear the facts. On the other hand, if the vestry gets what they don’t want (a recommendation for the pastor to stay) they have no experience with each other in addressing and working through difficulties. Much of the literature on conflict management is about this problem of not surfacing directly the organization’s difficulties and describes the need for confrontation as a way to combat it. What is meant by confrontation in behavioral science literature is not what the word sounds like. The word sounds like you are licensing the people in the organization to attack one another. “Lets have a confrontation meeting,” has the ring of “let’s get those dirty so and so’s and put them in their place”. This is not what is meant by confrontation.

Invitation In order to avoid raising fears by such confrontation labels, I use the word invitation, or acknowledgement. Those words affirm the fact that differences are perceived by the various parties to the conflict, yet movement is towards seeking solutions, calling the others closer in order to work through differences, naming the difficulties, and encouraging the others to stay in the process of seeking jointly acceptable outcomes. Encouraging the others to join with you in dealing with the conflict and encouraging the others to stay with you in the process is perhaps the single most important conflict management skill one can use. Mostly we are dealing with the

Leadership and Conflict Surfacing Submerged Conflict

issues of fear at this point, but subordinancy issues present as well. With regard to fear, it is important to remember that as a person’s perception of powerlessness increases, the likelihood of violence or bizarre behavior increases. Those persons who perceive themselves to be powerless to affect by other means what is happening are most likely to strike out against others in destructive ways. If I am unable to get what I want by rational and fair means, then I am likely to give up (Seligman’s helplessness idea) or I am likely to strike out against what I perceive to be causing the pain, holding me back, or frustrating me in some way. Note that a greater incident of depression and violence is among alienated powerless persons in society than among those who have opportunities to exert change and influence on the system. In my own experiences the only time I have struck anyone has been when I perceived myself to be powerless to have an effect on them by rational communication patterns. It was when I felt powerless that I acted with bellicosity. This knowledge should help the leader in conflict situations. If the leader is aware that increasing the ability of those with whom she is in conflict to use rational and fair means will improve their conflict management skills and lower their levels of fear and frustration, then she can see that encouraging the other to stay in the process is likely to be helpful in dealing with the tension as well. To illustrate this point further, I was recently working with a staff where a great deal of friction had developed between two second-level staff persons almost immediately after the second was hired. Al had been on the staff for six years and Bob had just come on board. Al felt that Bob was scheming with the boss to make the institution into an impersonal, legalistic bureaucracy. Bob perceived Al to be self-centered, not wanting to learn anything, and stuck in out- modeled and inefficient patterns of work. Both Al and Bob spoke with me about the conflict. As it happened Bob was more threatened by the conflict than was Al. I encouraged Al to go to Bob and invite him to talk about the problems that they were having. When Bob got belligerent and called Al names, Al did not respond to the deprecations (non-reward, extinction) but asked if they could name specifically what was hurting their relationship (invitation). When, on the occasion, Bob abruptly left he meeting saying, “this is hopeless,” Al waited two days and again when to Bob’s office requesting that they explore the reasons for the discomfort between them, assuming that each had contributed to the difficulty, and it was not all one person’s fault. This exploration was very difficult for both of them. Al was often discouraged and perceived Bob to be interpersonally incompetent, high strung, and conspiratorial. Several times Al

said to me, “I don’t think it’s worth it. Nothing will come of this. I am wasting my time.” But Al hung in there. Bob on the other hand, was afraid that he would lose his new job. He was utterly perplexed by the advice hw was getting to level with the other person and by the regular invitations to attempt to work through the problems, which on the surface came to little, Bob began to feel secure enough to stay with the process of seeking solutions to problems rather than avoiding them, running from uncomfortable meeting, or attacking Al by calling him names. After a time they were able to work rather well together. When I recommend this process to leaders, they are often nonplussed by the suggestion. After all, the other person started it, or he or she has done more damage than the person with whom I am talking, or he or she won’t be able to handle such an invitation and will, inevitably, use such a show of what may be perceived to be weakness against the one who is doing the inviting. In fact, all these outcomes are possible. However, these disasters are less probable by initiating the action than by avoiding it or fighting. But even more important than this is fact is the reality that you are the only one that you have charge of in any situation. You cannot control the other person; you cannot get him or her to do what you want (whether or not that person should be taking the invitation). The only person over whom you have any control over is yourself, and if you want to deal with the conflict, you will have to take the invitation. If the other person takes the invitation, you are lucky. If the other person doesn’t take the invitation, you better do so.

Making Contact The second thing that you need to consider when you are inviting the other to join you is “making contact.” Herman and Korenlch talk about contact in this way:

When two people are in contact, they are really seeing, hearing, and experiencing each other and what is going on right here, right now. When you are in good contact with another person, there are minimum interferences with you sensing process.

When you are not in good contact, your senses are being interfered with –you are worrying, thinking of something other than what’s going on right here and now, making assumptions in your mind about what the effects of your words will be on the other person, and so on. When your mind is preoccupied, of course, it is unlikely that you are

Leadership and Conflict Surfacing Submerged Conflict

really able to use your eyes and ears, to experience what is really happening in your immediate situation. (1)

What happens when we are not making contact with each other is intellectualizing, playing “ain’t it awful,” or self-neutralizing. When on e is intellectualizing he is generalizing or abstracting rather than talking specifically about this situation and the relationships involved. When a person is generalizing, he talks of broad categories of situations rather than what is happening right now. “What do you think a person should do when his boss doesn’t give him the resources he needs to do the work?” That is generalizing. Are you talking about yourself? By “resources” do you mean money or staff? What work is it that you want to accomplish? One of the best clues to help you assess whether contact is being made is whether or not there is eye contact. Often the person who is generalizing will look at the floor, at the ceiling, or off into space rather than look at the other person. “Ain’t it awful” is listing complaints with out allowing opportunity for serious discussion as to what to do about any of them. Self-neutralization is where the individual makes a critical comment about another and then mitigate its power by trying to be fair or accurate, perhaps in order to avoid conflict or hurting the other person’s feelings. “I’m not sure you’re doing a very good job of inhabiting developers form buying up our land in the township,” one of the voters said to a planning committee member the other day, “but it must be terribly difficult to do that. Those developers are really smart; they’ve got a lot of staff to help them, and there are so many of them that is must be impossible for you to keep track of all that is going on.” here the person says what she feels and yet fails to achieve contact because she softens the blow of the critique by “understanding the circumstances.” So she is not helping the other make contact with what she is actually thinking or feeling. Often self-neutralization is an attempt to increase empathy towards the other. Being empathetic means that you are aware of what the likely consequences of your behavior will be and have some idea of what other people’s feelings might be “standing in those shoes”. However, my empathy should not interfere with my expression of myself. I can empathize with your pain, and I can share my concerns with out neutralizing them. For example, “I am angry that you did not vote against the zone variance for the new housing development. You must have some feelings in this situation as well, will you tell me what they are?”

Structuring and interaction It is helpful when inviting the other to deal with the conflict you are facing to take some initiative to structure the process of the conversation or interaction. This is best done if it is a joint effort. In fact, it can be the first move you make toward joint problem solving. If you are able to reach agreement on how you are going to approach your difficulties, you are going to increase the probability of reaching agreement about the difficulties themselves. This can be one of those small successes that leads the way to further successes in working through the problem. Here is a process that many have found to be helpful: First agree on the guidelines or ground rules you will use to determine whether the conflict tactics you are using are fair. I like the guidelines given by David Luecke in The Relationship Manual:

1. No one is allowed to define the situation for the other. Each person expresses only his or her viewpoint.

2. Space is always given for an alternative point of view. 3. Respond to the statement of the other before expressing your own view. 4. It is OK to disagree. You can enjoy a conversation without coming to an

agreement. You only need to hear, understand, and accept what the other person has said as his or her point of view.

Another set of guidelines for structuring the context of the conflict are

those delineated by George Bach (2):

1. Statements are rational and realistic, not contrived and insincere, or manipulative.

2. Statements are fair; the other can cope with them and integrate them and respond; they are not devastating or impairing to the other’s motivation and capacity to continue.

3. Genuine feelings are shared; persons are not detached/withdrawn for taking concern.

4. Each is willing to acknowledge a share in conflict and its resolution means that one does not blame outside sources or the other alone. 5. Humor produces relief, not sarcasm, putdowns, or humiliation. 6. Feedback is accurate and relevant, not distorted or full of

attributions.

Leadership and Conflict Surfacing Submerged Conflict

7. Statements are clear and contain concrete details, not vague and general.

8. Statements are related to the here and now, something that you can do something about.

9. Each party is willing to be flexible and open to change.

Structuring the interaction also means that the two of you will talk about what the literal steps will be in the development of the conversation. This will seem awkward the first time that you do it (and the second and the third time). However, what you are doing by agreeing on the problem-solving process is helping everyone involved feel more in control and more powerful, and hence less likely to act crazy (again, there are no guarantees here, but we are exploring processes that can or may help). Here is a process that often works (from The Relationship Manual):

A. Identify one issue that seems important to work on at a time. B. Take turns restating what you each want with respect to the issue

and what is most important to you. C. One of you offers a “summary statement” of what you both have

said and then asks, “Is this the way you see it?” D. The other agrees with the summary statement or revises it or offers

additional information and another “summary statement” again checking it out. This continues until you agree on a summary statement.

E. Who ever has the next turn now offers a proposal: I will be willing to… if you would be willing to …

F. The other now responds to the offer. If you respond by accepting the offers as stated, go directly to the next step; if not, respond by offering a modification or a counterproposal, the other responds with further modifications or another counterproposal until a proposal is accepted.

G. Who ever has the next turn summarizes what you have agreed upon, emphasizing what each is getting in a positive way. The other responds with agreement (or clarification if needed) and suggests doing something to share the good feelings of working through your differences.

Problem Definitions

The other thing to be aware of as you move towards the other in conflict is the importance of the way problems or issues are defines in the first place. We block ourselves from seeing options and possibilities because of the way we describe what we are seeing or experiencing. Bandler and Grindler (1) point to three problems that regularly occur as individuals try to explain the words –or describe what is the matter at the present time and how it might be corrected. Bandler and Grinder’s three categories are: generalization, deletion, and distortion. Generalization is the problem of describing something in a way that detaches the experience from the specific event and leads one to represent more of the experience in the description than is actually in case. It is useful to generalize that sharp knives can cut you, but it is not the case that all knives are sharp and therefore dangerous (as is the case with a butter knife). Generalization as problem descriptions often start: “You always…,” or “Everybody thinks…,” or “People…” (as in “People are out to get me!” or “People would like to see you get another job”). Sometimes the generalization is a vague description of something that happened: “when we got to the meeting, we were surprised and frightened by the president’s unprovoked attack.” “Unprovoked attack” doesn’t specify very much. If what exactly happened were described, it might help everyone get a better grip on the whole situation and its meaning: “when we got to the meeting, we were surprised by the president’s statement that Jim had forgotten to puck him up and he had to walk to the meeting.” Even if the president’s statement had the tone of attack, it is still more easily dealt with by being specific. “The president was red in the face and shouted at Mary that he was angry at Jim because he had not been picked up.” This tells the whole story rather than leaving to one’s imagination what might have happened or what the meaning of the events might be.

Sometimes the generalization is one that attributes more meaning to the situation than is actually there. “My boss doesn’t appreciate my work” is a generalization that puts everyone in a difficult situation for problem solving. A more specific description of the situation might be: “My boss doesn’t; come down to my office and talk from time to time, “or “My boss was unhappy with the way I handled the Fourth Street Project.” The second kind of inappropriate problem definitions is what Bandler and Grinder call “deletion”. Deletion is selectively paying attention to the certain

Leadership and Conflict Surfacing Submerged Conflict

dimensions of experiences and excluding others. Sometimes this is done in quite an obvious way. “You never plan ahead” is a problem description that ignores the fact that the person does plan meals, does manage money, does plan at work, but does not plan what to do on the weekends. A more subtle kind of deletion is describing part of the experience but deleting the rest as in, “I’m confused.” When what is meant is, “I’m confused by Tom’s request for more feed back after he told me he didn’t want to talk about his behavior.” The first statement implies that the speaker is generally confused, confused about everything. The second gives full appreciation to the part of one’s experience that is causing the difficulty. Finally, some problem definitions are distorted. Distortion implies some kind of finality that may in fact not be there. Often what is being described is a process, but the process is described as if it were a conclusion or completed actuality. Thus Bandler and Grinder say the statement, “I regret my decision to return home,” is a distortion, implying that the decision to return home is final. Most decisions can be changed. Regretting a decision does not allow the possibility that deciding is an ongoing process. A more accurate description is, “I regret that I am deciding to return home.” Another illustration the give is, “I am surprised at her resistance to me,” which is a distortion of, “I am surprised that she is resisting me.” The former sentence implies that resistance is final and forever, the latter that resistance is an ongoing decision that might be changed in the future. Because of these problems in the initial stages of confrontation or invitation, it is important that problem statements be framed in ways that help to clarify rather than obfuscate the difficulties we are trying to deal with. With the more specifics put into the statement the better. Often problem statements take this form, Who is doing or not doing what to whom? This particular form helps the problem definer tell as possible, especially if it meets the criteria:

1. It describes what is problematic, what is the difference between what is and what is the desired state. It isn’t very helpful to have an accurate description of what is if it is not something you want to do something about.

2. The statement is specific and descriptive, letting everyone know what happened, what is happening, or what needs to be changed.

3. The statement is not an attribution, that is, a guess about what the other intends, or thinks, or means by a given behavior or statement. “She is trying to wreck this organization” is usually an attribution, or mind reading, a guess at what the other’s motives are.

4. Problem statements shouldn’t be putdowns. Putdowns are different from descriptions in that their intention is to add pain to an already difficult situation.

5. Problem statements describe something that one can do something about. It is not a problem statement to describe something to which no one can respond, such as, “The problem is that it snows in Alaska.” This is not something that anyone can do anything about and is, therefore, not a workable statement.

Sometimes, workable problems may be discovered by talking about, and

exploring a non-workable problem, e.g. the statement, “John is too big for that seat” is not workable, but the statement, “That seat is too small for John,” may be workable. Changing John’s size may not be within the realm of possibility, but changing contours of seats may be.

A useful technique for generating workable problem statements is for me and the person with whom I have the disagreement to make a list of workable problems rather than to try to identify just one that we can agree on. If we come up with a list of problems, we are more likely to find some that will succeed. Further, we don’t get stuck in a presumption that my definition of the problem is better than your definition. A list of problems acknowledges that there are many dimensions to the problem and that working one aspect of the problem will not “solve” the whole thing. It will only give us a start into a complex situation. Two other advantages to listing problems are that the same problem can be stated in different ways suggesting different roles that the individual can take in alleviating the difficulty, and different processes by which the problem might be dealt with can be suggested. To illustrate, let’s look at a situation and some of the workable problems that may be contained in it.

The 4-H rents a community building owned by the city to carry out a nutrition program. The director of the community building and the 4-H agent get into a conflict over where, when, and how the training in canning will be done.

The director doesn’t allow the 4-H agent to have keys to the building. The 4-H agent did not put away the utensils used in the kitchen on three

occasions. The 4-H agent was unable to put these utensils away on these occasions

because the person with he key was not in the building. The 4-H agent wants to have the building open in the evening for canning

training sessions.

Leadership and Conflict Surfacing Submerged Conflict

The director does not have money in the budget for hiring supervisory and custodial staff for evening use of the building.

The director does not have an alternative means of funding supervisory and custodial staff for the evening use of the building.

The 4-H agent does not have alternative means of staffing supervisory and custodial staff for evening use of the building.

This list illustrates that the problems are not all one-sided; each

statement has problematic element on both sides. It also illustrates the fact that a list of problems can suggest ideas about the way problems can be approached. For example, when the 4-H agent complains about not being able to work at night, the director indicates her perceptions of what interferes with these work hours. This suggests to both of them that alternative approached to the problem can help them address it.

When to Escalate Conflict

Up to this point in the chapter I have been describing the importance of

limited escalation, or bring problems up when they occur and helping people in the group or organization address their difficulties. However, it is not always appropriate to escalate conflict. A number of factors should be taken into account, as you consider moving toward conflict escalation.

Newness. The first thing to consider is how new the relationships are in the conflict setting. People who are just getting acquainted with one other don’t manage differences well. They tend to drop away very quickly, unless they have high stakes in the outcome of the conflict. I have learned through many years of teaching courses in conflict management that it is not a good idea to get a new group into conflict experiences too early. The people are just getting acquainted, and they have plenty of anxiety about what these relations are going to be like without adding the anxiety of conflict. So in the begging of a group session I start with highly structured and safe experiences. This helps people to get to know one another and helps them develop trust and a sense of security in the group, which will make later risk-taking more profitable.

Skills and experience. I am also concerned about the ability of people to handle themselves in a conflict. The less skilled and less experienced people are in developing and keeping relationships the more difficult it will be for them to manage conflict. This also true about the issues with which they are dealing; the less they know about the subject, the more conflict is likely to get out of hand.

Earlier I mentioned the impact of powerlessness and conflict. The less experience, skill, and knowledge, the more powerless the person will feel. Thus, the invitation to deal with issues must be much more cautious and gently initiated with novices than with persons who are “old hands”.

Structure. This is also a critical element. The more structure there is the more the perception of safety. The less structure there is the more confusion and possibility of discomfort. If the organization you are with has structures and processes for problem-solving and conflict management, they should be used. If not, they can easily be created on an ad hoc basis as the conflict develops. This creation of structure will add components of security to compensate for the components of risk that come with the conflict situation. To illustrate this, think about a conflict where no authority or agreed-on problem-solving process exists to help deal with the situation. For example, a squabble between neighbors over who gets the fruit form the limbs of a tree that hangs over the property line could create a more anxiety than a conflict with an auto mechanic. When you know you can go to the service representative or to the service department manager if you do not get satisfaction with the mechanic, you are likely to experience less trauma than when you have no guidelines on how to go about it than when it is a so-called free-for-all.

Available time. As the time to work the problem decreases, the intensity of the conflict increases. It will be to the advantage of everyone to allocate ample time to work through the issue, but it is also a good essential to establish a time when the necessary decisions are to be made. Time pressure increases anxiety and the amount of fear present in the situation. If you want to increase pressure towards decision-making, a common strategy is to set a short deadline.

Other factors that are likely to make a difference in the way people handle conflict are:

Degree of role clarity. This problem occurs when there is disagreement as to who should be making what decisions based on traditional assumptions about who has the responsibility for those decisions. This is being experienced most profoundly in marriages. Traditional role differentiation indicates that it is the husband who should make decisions about large purchases and the wife who makes the decisions about food, clothing, and day-to-day maintenance items. These assumptions about who makes what decisions are being challenged in some modern marriages and changed in others. These changes increase the difficulty in making decisions and managing conflict because the traditional rules do not apply. The greater the confusion in understanding about who should make what decisions, the greater the difficulty in managing the conflict.

Leadership and Conflict Surfacing Submerged Conflict

Resource disparity. This is also a factor in conflict management. Both tangible and intangible resource disparity are factors (this language is that of John Scanzoni and Maximilian Szinovacz in Family Decision-Making). Tangible resource disparity has to do with the differences that can be measured, such as the amount of education the parties have, job status, or income. Intangible resource disparity has to do with self-esteem. Resource disparity relates back to that question of powerlessness that we spoke of earlier. The more I perceive myself to have the fewer resources to deal with the situation, the more helpless, powerless, or violent I am likely to be. (If I can get what I want by logical argument, perhaps I can attack you, overly or covertly, or at least punish you even though I may not be able to accomplish my goal.) Often resource disparity is irrelevant to the actual problem being addressed. Nonetheless, the associations people have of others in their roles may affect their self-esteem and seriously handicap or mar the ability of the parties to stay with and work through the difficulties they are facing.

Third parties, audiences. Research on the effect of outsiders on conflict had been reported by Rubin and Brown (3). Generally, audiences (whether they are invited to observe as mediators or whether they just happen to be present) have a salutary effect on conflict. Where the parties are aware that they are observed by neutral, impractical, and, presumably, objective outsiders, they tend to temper their behavior to fit the prevailing norms regarding appropriate behavior in conflict. One expectation to this is when the audience is on your “team.” For example, labor/management disputes are often made more difficult because the negotiators are more concerned with the perceptions they are giving to those they represent than with the attempt to reach an agreement with their counterparts in the bargaining. This makes compromise difficult. Another expectation is hen the audience is looking for blood and reveling in the difficulties that the conflicted parties are experiencing. It is not unusual for newspapers and television reporters to bait protagonists in such a way that their responses make “a good story”. This of course, is not helpful for managing differences, and the role of the reporter as impartial observer (which can be very salutary) is forsaken.

Mutuality. Scanzoni also talks about what he calls “mutuality” as a crucial factor in the management of differences. Mutuality comes out of the past experiences of both parties. It has to do with past relationships between them, and the assessment that they now make concerning how cooperative, trustworthy, fair, or empathetic each is to the other’s concerns. If one’s assessment of the other is that he or she has not been cooperative or trustworthy,

then, of course, the current difficulties will be complicated by past experiences. This does not mean that agreement is impossible, only that more stipulations, more guarantees, more “inspections”, as in the case of Russia and the United States, are needed before one will believe that the other can be trusted.

The leader as model in conflict setting. The way you are aware of yourself in conflict will profoundly affect your ability to manage yourself and work with others in the midst of a conflict. Freud talked about the unconscious as a part of the self of which you are not fully aware. It was his perception that below the surface of full awareness you are working out a scenario that can make sense to your non-conscious self but not always to the conscious self. Perhaps you have a wish you want to fulfill or you feel guilty about an event or an imagined event and believe, non-consciously, that you must be punished or pay for it. Freudian therapy works on the premise that as you become aware of the non-conscious drama in which you perceive yourself to be an actor, the script of the drama loses its power to control you, and you begin to write a new script. Tom Wolfe in The Electric Kool-aid Acid Test (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1968) refers to another person’s choices and behaviors as “that’s his movie”. He said he says what Freud said before him, that the individual looks at the world and consciously and non-consciously assigns meaning, richness, (or dullness), and purpose to what is happening. This is not difficult for us to fathom at some immediately accessible levels, yet much of what is happening is only partially available to us as individuals, thought it may be much clearer to others who are with us.

One man with whom I worked for four years had been in prison some years before and was now a community organizer. When I asked him why he had decided to go “straight” he said that he was tired of playing “cops and robbers”. He knew what his “movie” had been and now he was choosing another. Perhaps you are aware of other dramas or movies that friends are playing out: the beautiful person who is never ruffled or affronted by anything, the big, hard-nosed boss, the devil’s advocate, the realist professor. Eric Berne delighted many of us with his ability to categorize and give colorful names to many of the dramas, which he called scripts, games, or injunctions, depending on the special category of life expression he was identifying.

Some of these “movies”, or “scripts”, or “dramas” are so much a part of our character, so hidden and protected from out usual awareness, and so important for survival that we cannot get close to then, let alone change tem, without the help of highly trained persons in therapeutic settings. Nonetheless, much of what we experience can be changed if we become aware of it and

Leadership and Conflict Surfacing Submerged Conflict

substitute a crazy, destructive, or helpless script for one that is life enhancing. This is what is at the heart of Norman Vincent Peale’s positive thinking, W. Clement Stone’s positive mental attitude, and Robert Schuller’s possibility thinking. They recommend replacing a defeatist script full of ennui and nausea with a new movie of hope and success. The problem that many of us have with Peale, Stone, and Schuller is their positive movie seems too unreal –like a Disney cartoon –and doesn’t’ face or affirm tragedy as a part of the victory of life. Rather, they seem to say that tragedy doesn’t exist, that when it does occur, it is a manifestation of evil and should be avoided, shunned, denied, put away. A different kind of movie affirms the conflict and tragedy of life as part of what is real and finds within it opportunities for empowerment, change, growth and stimulation. What has made the great leaders of the world notable is not the absence of conflict or struggle from the implementation of their leadership—just the opposite—greatness has come from eth way they addressed adversity. Who remembers the leaders during the times of quiet and peace? Few. From where did those we most admire come? They came, like Ghandi, from the struggle to free a captive nation from the rule of another; they came, like Roosevelt, from a war against economic depression and the attempted tyranny of other nations; they came, like Margaret Sanger, from a war against women’s ability control what happens to their bodies; and they came, like Susan Anthony, from a war to deny suffrage to women. What was the movie of Sanger, Ghandi, Roosevelt, or Anthony? It was not the movie of helplessness, nor was it the movie of annihilation of the enemy. “Well,” you say, “that’s all great for Ghandi and Sanger, but for me, no way. I’ve neither the ability nor the temperament to invite conflict or to stay in it. I’d rather be at peace and get along with everybody.” When you say this, are you aware of the movie you’re in? It’s Dick & Jane Go to Uncle Bob’s Farm. Nothing really happens in this script. In fact its essence is the lack of action. This is not the movie I choose if I believe I have free well, if I believe I have something to give that makes a difference to someone and that I have some control over what I do. Recently I spoke with a woman who is the new director of a community action agency. She said she wanted to make significant changes in the way the program had been run—such as letting some people go who were not pulling their weight, moving the main office, and dropping some ineffective programs. The man who used to be the director of the agency is now her supervisor. Her recommended changes threatened him, so he encouraged her to keep doing as he had done in that position. At first he only made recommendations, then he sent

strong memos threatening her if she didn’t do as he said, and finally he told other people that she was incompetent and made up stories about her. His behavior was threatening to the new director. She was annoyed, scared, angry and confused all at once. But her picture of herself was of a person with good ideas who listens to other and who stands up to attach no matter how petty, personal, or peevish it is. (Notice I said “stands up to attack” not “dishes out the same meat she gets.”) This internal stance comes through. Everybody understands it-not immediately, not in the same way, not always clearly—but somehow it is perceived by superiors in the organization, by her antagonist, and by other observers that she has integrity (which means “wholeness”). It is through her struggle with this adversary that her true mettle is revealed. Most of the observers come to respect her and realize that she can “manage” tough situations. The power of this kind of leadership is twofold. Part of the power is in the long-term effects it has on the decision being made—where the office will be, who stays on the staff, and what the program will be—and the other part of the power is the profound effect if has on the others who see a new movie and believe it could be model for them. If the top leaders of the organization choose other movies, they befuddle, confuse, and antagonize, drive people away from taking responsibility for themselves, and lose their impact on the rest of the organization.