Negotiating War: a "False and Sloppy Consensus"
Let's take a workplace teaching moment from the Obama-McCrystal dust-up as provided to us by the New Yorker in this week's Talk of the Town piece, Team Effort. In reporting the dysfunction on Team Afghanistan (McChrystal vs. American Ambassador Karl Eikenberry with President Karzai as a manipulative by-stander) the NY'ers George Packer recalls a description of governmental decision-making provided by Obama's special representative for the region, Richard Holbrooke, last year:
People sit in a room, they don't air their real differences, a false and sloppy consensus papers over those underlying differences, and they go back to their offices and continue to work at cross-purposes, even actively undermining each other.
If that defines your workplace, it's time to have some difficult conversations in which a genuine consensus is negotiated among those in power, all the while remembering that everyone is afraid of the scary HR lady down the hallway. As the recession appears to deepen and run American business off the rails, its time we get real, get smart, get efficient and get right with one another. If not, next thing you know, you'll be learning to spell Q-U-A-G-M-I-R-E yourself, wondering how the heck such a profitable enterprise could meet such a messy and costly end.
Here are some resources:
Difficult Workplace Conversations by Conflict Zen blogger Tammy Lenski - an old post but a timeless one.
Bursting the Bubble, Cultivating Dissent in the Workplace by mediator and negotiation trainer and consultant Diane Levin of The Mediation Channel.
Resolving Conflicts at Work by Ken Cloke and Joan Goldsmith.
The Martial Art of Difficult Conversations by Peter (why I returned my iPad) Bregman at the Harvard Business Review
Toward a Theory of Managing Organizational Conflict by M Afzalur Rahim (for the academically-minded)
And, last but not least, the google book site for the Art of War
And remember . . . . never ever ever get comfortable with a reporter around.




Comments (3)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endJoe Markowitz - July 1, 2010 12:37 AM
Packer's analysis suggests that maybe Obama fired the wrong guy. Because all of the incoherence and sniping and disagreement was occurring on the civilian side, between Holbrooke and Eickenberry and Biden and others. The military team under McChrystal was actually very cohesive, and had a pretty well-thought out strategy (people might not agree with the strategy, but it was still well thought-out). What McChrystal's team got into trouble for was allowing a Rolling Stone reporter to make public their disparagement of the civilians. But maybe McChrystal's and his aides' criticisms were right. The Rolling Stone piece at least showed that McChrystal's team had a strong spirit and camaraderie, while the civilian team was dysfunctional. And what McChrystal got in trouble for was calling the civilians dysfunctional. But isn't that what Packer and your piece are suggesting that McChrystal should have been doing? If it's dysfunctional, why not call it dysfunctional? Does firing McChrystal encourage people to air their grievances or paper them over even more? Maybe what the President still needs to do is get everybody on his civilian team on the same page, or make some heads roll in that group. Or it could be that he actually likes to allow a lot of conflict among members of his team, as long as they know who the boss is.
Tammy Lenski - July 1, 2010 8:36 AM
Thanks for the shout-out, Vickie! Good advice and a terrific quote.
Michael Kors Sale - May 15, 2012 11:11 PM
Your article makes me stay in high spirits all the day!