Nobody likes having the difficult conversations. But by paying attention to what makes them so difficult, we can work through these challenges and make these "tough talks" productive.
5. “
If we have this tough a time talking with
understanding and patience around
(relatively) trivial things, what do our
meaningful conversations look like?
6. CHALLENGES OF CONFLICT
⊡ Premature Decisiveness
⊡ Intent to Narrow
⊡ Win-Lose Orientation
⊡ Abdication of Responsibility
This quartet, used together, make decisions
needlessly contentious and difficult. They also
make creativity next to impossible.
12. SEPARATE INVENTION FROM
EVALUATION
⊡ Statement of the Issue
(“What are we looking at here?”)
⊡ Analysis of Said Issue
(“What’s causing this?”)
⊡ Consideration of General Approaches
(“What are our options?”)
⊡ Identification of Specific Actions
(“So what are we going to do?”)
13. BRING IT INTO YOUR WORLD
Take a few moments to answer the following:
How could slowing down premature decisiveness help your
organization solve their big problem?
15. We’re all in a rush to fix things.
(Well, most of us.)
16. BRING IT INTO YOUR WORLD
Take a look at that second step.
Interpretation slows the jump from discovery to ideation. In doing
that, the ideas generated in the third step are worthwhile and
purposeful.
17. BRING IT INTO YOUR WORLD
Take a few moments to answer the following:
How could resisting your natural intent to narrow help your
organization solve their big problem?
21. BRING IT INTO YOUR WORLD
Take a few moments to answer the following:
How could removing your attachment to “winning” the debate
help your organization solve their big problem?
24. Here, it is imperative to understand the needs
addressed by other perspectives.
25. BRING IT INTO YOUR WORLD
Take a few moments to answer the following:
How could finding and embracing your responsibility for the
outcome help your organization solve their big problem?
27. THE BIG QUESTIONS, IN
REVIEW
⊡ How could slowing down premature decisiveness help my organization
solve its big problem?
⊡ How could resisting our natural intent to narrow help my organization
solve its big problem?
⊡ How could removing my attachment to “winning” the debate help my
organization solve its big problem?
⊡ How could finding and embracing my responsibility for the outcome help
my organization solve its big problem?
28. THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF
CREATIVITY
ALLIES, ADVOCATES, +
ACTIVATORS
Who supports your
organization that can help
you work through these
goals?
BROADMINDEDNESS
Where can you look for
inspiration for solving the
problems at hand, and
how can you introduce
them to your group?
COLLABORATION
Are there other leaders or
groups on campus that
have this down? Can they
help you solve the
problem at hand?
DETERMINATION
These solutions may take
a while. A semester, a
year, your Temple career,
or even longer. Are you
ready for that?
EXECUTION
Are you well suited to
move an idea from your
head, into action out in
the world? Who or what
can help you?
FLEXIBILITY
It may take a few tries to
get this “right.” How will
you learn to shift and
pivot as your
circumstances change?
33. CREDITS
Special thanks to all the people who made and released these
awesome resources for free:
⊡ Presentation template by SlidesCarnival
⊡ Photographs by Unsplash
Editor's Notes
Fisher and Ury noted these when talking about negotiation. And what is making a decision for your organization, but a negotiation with a specific destination?
We’re all busy. There’s never enough time to do anything- we barely get to meet, there’s too much to talk about...and that makes us rush decisions that likely shouldn’t be rushed. As a bonus, if we rush a decision that means we can’t get in arguments. No time, right?
But, this creates a different problem. Unaddressed slights, cutoffs, or silences created in this expedited process turn into quieter but more insidious conflicts.
This is especially difficult when hearing ideas, because we all- whether it’s our style or not- tend to reward, or hold a certain kind of reverence, for the first idea that comes up in a shared space. He who speaks first, is likely to get rewarded. Even if it’s not the best idea, we like it because it was first.
We get the opportunity to analyze how our actions impact people.
We get to hear voices of people whose ideas might take longer to materialize, either because they need more information or because their neural pathways are fueled differently.
We can create solutions that address the needs of multiple constituencies.
Fisher and Ury noted these when talking about negotiation. And what is making a decision for your organization, but a negotiation with a specific destination?
That intent to narrow comes from not wanting to present too many options. Why? Because too many options makes our jobs harder, and we often resist making things harder when we’re (tie back to part 1) trying to move fast. The second comes about as a consequence of the first.
They might find that the ideas they were considering will have an adverse impact on others, or that their solution might create a new problem for someone else. Alternate versions of the design thinking model name the first step as “empathy,” rather than “discovery,” and it’s that principle that this practice is aimed at. When you rush to conclusions, who does that affect and how?
Related to this: being wrong doesn’t feel good. That’s why those people who yell on the Internet yell so loudly when confronted. Because sitting in the quiet reveals things we might not like or want to see.
But winning at all costs is a problem when trying to move an organization forward, for a few reasons.
Those who “lose,” might not be wrong. They may be speaking for something really important to the organization’s success. What’s more, even if you agree that all involved must move forward with the final decision, they’ll remember how you made one another feel.
Win-lose orientation starts to matter a little less when the decisions being made are couched in Bruce Kasanoff’s language. The thing you’re fighting for? Who does that represent? How can you bring their needs into play? And whatever the other side is? How might they need your help?
Preface any movement on conflict with a discussion of needs. Not just what you want from the end result, but why. What informs that want. What the backstory is. This humanizes the two (or more!) sides of the debate, grounds what might seem like abstract demands in a context that is essential for making decisions.
Management expert Patrick Lencioni is fond of the rule: once a decision is made, everyone agrees to abide by and enact the outcome the group reaches. He sees it as encouragement for those shy or reluctant to share their opinion. If you don’t say what you thought should be different, how will people know?
Again, this inclination is dangerous in an organization.
It creates factions and chasms that may affect how people in the org work with one another, and represent themselves to the outside world. Unity, or an understanding of a common goal, are needed for organizational health to thrive. In their absence, bigger problems will arise.
And moving an organization in a new direction is incredibly difficult when looking back, or around for blame.
A good exercise for this: after factions start to develop, let each side articulate what their stance is based on. How does it meet their needs? After that is done for both sides, the opposite side needs to articulate what they heard and understood. This way, the stance is explored further, and it becomes less about “sides” and more about “needs.”
That last question, is powerful. It’s a great one to share with prospective employers or collaborators. How did I make my own individual mark on this group I led through change, creativity, and impact?
Win-lose orientation starts to matter a little less when the decisions being made are couched in Bruce Kasanoff’s language. The thing you’re fighting for? Who does that represent? How can you bring their needs into play? And whatever the other side is? How might they need your help?
Preface any movement on conflict with a discussion of needs. Not just what you want from the end result, but why. What informs that want. What the backstory is. This humanizes the two (or more!) sides of the debate, grounds what might seem like abstract demands in a context that is essential for making decisions.
Management expert Patrick Lencioni is fond of the rule: once a decision is made, everyone agrees to abide by and enact the outcome the group reaches. He sees it as encouragement for those shy or reluctant to share their opinion. If you don’t say what you thought should be different, how will people know?
Again, this inclination is dangerous in an organization.
It creates factions and chasms that may affect how people in the org work with one another, and represent themselves to the outside world. Unity, or an understanding of a common goal, are needed for organizational health to thrive. In their absence, bigger problems will arise.
And moving an organization in a new direction is incredibly difficult when looking back, or around for blame.