While I am not scared of conflict, I am more than willing to
do what is needed to keep it from reaching that point when discussing things,
especially in my work environment. A
submarine is small enough as it is - having someone that is pissed at you just
because you couldn’t resolve your differences makes it that much smaller. On the other hand, I will not shy away if I
know I am right and the conflict is worth the outcome. I recently entered into a conflict where I
knew I had little chance of success but it had to be entered into on a matter
of principle. Without getting into too
much detail, I strongly disagreed with a decision that had been made at my
command. I could have shrugged it off as
just another wrong turn but instead I decided that I had to stand up for my
guys and how I felt, so I decided to confront the decision maker. Rather than engage right there, I removed
myself from the situation for the remainder of the day and thought about how I
would approach confronting the issue in the morning. I wrote down why I thought the decision was
not appropriate, developed facts to support them (also to ensure that I wasn’t
too far off the middle ground – it was a sanity check for me), and asked to
speak with the decision maker the following morning. As I said before, I knew nothing was really
going to come out of it as I knew full well that he had made up his mind for
far more than professional reasons.
Anyways, I entered into the discussion as calmly as possible at which
time we proceeded to go back and forth for about an hour. I would present my opinion and supporting
documentation, he would refute it saying the documentation wasn’t applicable in
the situation and so on. I didn’t press
illogical or hypocritical statements as I thought he would take it as a
personal attack (which in hindsight I was correct). The outcome of the conflict was that the
person now doesn’t trust me and thinks that I am a liability due to my
inability to fall blindly into place in line.
Based on my observations and the observations of others, I have no doubt
he harbors ill will for me entering into the discussion. I probably would have still entered into the
discussion due to how strongly I felt about it, however I did not fully grasp
the level of personal misgivings he would take from the discussion.
Looking at Levine’s 10 principles of new thinking, I think
they would have only helped the situation if he would have been willing to also
abide by them. In fact, I would say I
employed at least 5 of the 10 principles in the conversation whereas he
continued to display the old type of thinking (which is where the problem did
and still lies). I entered the
discussion wanting to open the air between us whereas he maintained a posturing
stance and was looking to win the conversation vice reach an agreement. I wasn’t looking for a future adversary,
which is apparently exactly what I got.
Also, as I mentioned before, I wasn’t looking to necessarily win the
conflict, I just wanted him to know that I had x number of reasons to say he
was really making a bad call (I was only trying to provide watch team backup - something he can't take apparently).
The lessons I learned were/are pretty simple. If you know what you are doing is the right
thing to do, do it regardless of the potential outcomes. While I might have created a problem for myself with the person
that controls my life at the command, I gained the respect of everyone else
there, something that is much more important to me. This was the first real situation I’ve had
where I needed to go to bat for one of my guys, and I think I did a good job
doing so, even if the outcome wasn’t changed.
Additionally, Levine’s 10 principles only work if both parties are
willing to use the new style of thinking vice the old.
No comments:
Post a Comment