Standing firm in an opinion is admirable. Standing firm in an opinion is
foolishness. Which is right? I’ve had managers defend their stance to me
in various contexts and situations. And
there are times I’ve agreed with them and there are times I’ve not. There are times I’ve had to ask them what
they were thinking (a question I have regretted asking upon occasion because
they’ve told me).
Whose perspective gets to win out and why? Is it just based
upon how we’re feeling? If so, that has to stop.
Often, the
person with the most power gets to win.
The executive, the c-suite, the board of directors...one of them can
pull ahead in the winning viewpoint rather easily. The trick might just be to work with this
level in understanding the winning perspective as well as influencing it.
Remember that freshman year of Psych 101? One of the many classic truths taught was
that people want to be heard and validated.
Our need to belong and to contribute runs deep. When people, especially when they sit on the
decision-making team, don’t feel that they can do or be these things, they
leave, attack or, perhaps the worst, die inside. We can influence someone who is ready to
settle for one of these options.
Perhaps it might be a worthy exercise to provide some case
studies to the executive team, leaving out the resolution, in order to foster
discussion between them. Why wait until
there is a real situation to find out which opinion will win? And from here, understand and influence such
an opinion, where appropriate.
If someone has the opportunity to share his/her perspective
and to be heard in a safe environment, then the defenses are lowered. A time for conversation and for consideration
is easier to foster. It’s here that those
details which are illegal or morally questionable can be vetted thoroughly by
those decision-makers. It’s here that
previous experiences can be shared to offer clarity around a particular perspective. It’s here that the cause of the organization can
be upheld stronger so that the decisions made are broader in context.
The natural question that arises here is, “Who decides who
is right?” Well, that’s where the forum
matters so much. Our ability to foster
dialogue is crucial; however, if we cannot do this in an environment where the
sharing of thoughts can happen, it will not produce the desired results. Our impact is based upon the results that
come from such a time. With the end in
mind, it behooves us to ensure that the environment is healthy for
dialogue. Remember, just being able to
express a view and for it to be heard clearly is a large part of the
battle.
But, it must be understood, that there may be a divide
between positions. There will have to be
an ultimate decision made. Respect for
the next steps of those individuals on the opposing side should be
offered. If someone feels so strongly
about an opinion that he/she needs to leave the organization, then that’s
okay. You’ve established an environment
for that person to share the different view, as well as to be heard. Being heard is not the same as full
agreement. We help cultivate maturity
through situations like this.
This is not wishful thinking, by the way. I’ve sat in board meetings where perspectives
and opinions were being shared. People
were being heard, but these people were also the hearers of others’ expressed
opposite viewpoints. It’s not about
making everyone think the same. Group
think has lots of issues to contend with, too.
This is about readying your team to act when it needs to. This is about ensuring a path towards an
appropriate response in situations. This
is about allowing each other to find out where the edges have to be smoothed
out or where they need to be left sharp.
In Mommie Dearest, Faye Dunaway portrays Joan Crawford. It’s an ugly look into the movie star’s life
and her influence on her children. There
is one ancillary scene towards the end of Joan’s life where her husband, Al
Steele, has died and left her with his seat on the board for Pepsi Cola. She attends the first meeting afterwards only
to be patronized by the remaining all-male board and “kindly” offered to be
excused. It was the first time a woman
had been on the board. The men did not
know how to respond and had not worked through it ahead of time. They were made to feel ridiculous and she
offered a solid perspective on it that they could not dispute, but only to
welcome her onto the board.
And while there are laws today which would prevent what Joan
Crawford went through, there are still plenty of perspectives out there. Someone has to listen to them, to understand
them, to challenge them, even if it’s just to be prepared with a response as to
why it’s the way it is. Oh, and “because
I said so” is not a thoughtful response or position. Just in case that’s what your plan was.
