Conflict and Communication

What?

Conflict in team and group work is inevitable. No group is going to completely agree on everything, nor should it. While many people view conflict as unhealthy or destructive, it can actually be very healthy and productive! 

However... 

There is a difference between conflict and dysfunctional conflict. 

Healthy conflict is when group members trust one another and they feel free to express divergent feelings and opinions. This contrary views are valued and there is tolerance for disagreement.

A group having dysfunctional conflict does not have psychological safety. A great explanation of psychological safety is found in this TedX Talk.

But simply put, psychological safety is "the belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes".

So what?

I think Amy Edmondson in the TedX talk does a pretty good job of explaining why psychological safety matters. If people do not feel safe to speak up, if conflict is viewed as harmful instead of helpful, mistakes are made, group think takes over, and people are not happy or satisfied with their jobs.

I once worked somewhere that looking back I can categorize as being no psychologically safe. People didn't want to speak up against the leadership, even when potentially harmful decisions were being made. There was an undercurrent of hostility. Team members were pitted against each other. Conflict interfered with us accomplishing goals. Overall, it was a dysfunctional work environment. Unsurprisingly, those who wanted to speak up but felt like they couldn't, left, myself included.

Now what?

You may be thinking, "everyone works for a dysfunctional office at some point". Sure, most of us will, which is why understanding the causes of dysfunctional conflict are important. If you can understand why the office or group is acting like it is, then you can try to counteract.

In my example, I could have tried to frame my descent around specific tasks or goals instead of remaining silent or critiquing the office as a whole. By focusing on the task, individuals may not feel attacked. I could have also tried to be more clear in my communication. It is possible that we had a great deal of miscommunication, misinformation, and misperception happening. Communication may have also helped to highlight where the disconnect was coming from, what differences in styles or values. Maybe if we had found other ways to communicate, we would have realized we all wanted the same thing, for our office to be successful.

Social Capital

I've been thinking a lot about social capital in context with leadership and group dynamics. What I mean by social capital is the connections between people that enable you to reach further, to connect with more people. It's networking.  Social capital is the value of your networks, the more networks you have the more social capital.

It all goes back to the saying, "It's not what you know, it's who you know."

Now what?

So social capital is this great thing. We connect with others, we do good things for them, they do good things for us. The trouble I have with this is that not everyone has the same opportunities to make these connections that are so vital. Someone with a less privileged identity does not have the same access. We all know that someone with "rich parents" is more likely to get the awesome internship or know someone who knows someone who can connect them with a nice job.


So what?

While I do spend a lot of time focusing on the downside of social capital, social media and the ever expending presence of online social networks are helping people with others from afar. It is easier than ever to find niche groups of people to bond with and small groups are able to bond together to bring about real change. The #Blacklivesmatter campaign is a good example of this. Another example is the students of the University of Missouri bonding together to remove the president that was dismissing students concerns over racist incidents. This cohesion enables groups to accomplish more than they could on their own.

As someone who currently preparing for graduation and thus looking for a job, I'm going to make use of the social capital I have. While I didn't have many networks when I graduated from undergrad, I have far more connections now. I've let friends, family, and former coworkers know I'm on the lookout. A supervisor sent me a job posting, a former colleague let me know of a job and commented that she knew the hiring manager. Social capital might enable me to find a job, or maybe I'll find one on my own, either way, with so many people looking out after me: I am richer than I thought.

Importance of Communication

It goes without saying that communication is important, right?

Maybe not. A quick google search reveals an article on the "Importance of Team Communication Skills", Inc.com has an infographic on the importance of internal team communication, and there are a number of sites promising to improve team communication here and here.

There's even a Ted Talk about how to have a better conversation.

So what? What does this have to do with leadership?

I'm glad you asked.

Franz (2012) claims team communication can be improved with trust and active listening.

It makes sense that trust and communication go hand in hand and a good leader knows this. Facilitate one, and you'll develop the other. Why would we trust someone who didn't listen to us? Why would we share ideas with someone we don't trust?

If you want your team to communicate they have to trust one another... and build trust, there needs to be communication. And this isn't just Franz (2012) who saying this.

Countless articles talk about the relationship between trust and communication, such as Boies, Fiset, and Gill's, "We contend that effective leadership stimulates communication among team members,and that, through increased communication, team members are able to acquire important information about their teammates, such as personal competence" (2015, p. 1083).

A good leader gets their team communicating and facilitates conversations when things get tough.

Now what?

In my leadership class we have a group project. The problem is that there isn't much communication happening... Without communication, there's no trust building... without trust, it is difficult to get the conversation going.

In hindsight, we should have done additional introductions to start the conversation instead of jumping directly into "What group do we want to choose for our project?". Moving forward, we are trying to meet via video which should lead to better communication, and hopefully, more trust from here on out.

Movements

You've heard about the Ice Bucket Challenge, right?

The Ice Bucket Challenge, also known as the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, involved people dumping ice water over their heads to raise awareness (and money) for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or Lou Gehrig's Disease.

This challenge went viral during the summer of 2014, raising more than $41.8 million. Everyone was participating- the list of videos on YouTube is extensive, with celebrity compilations. 

So what? Well, this movement is an example of invisible leadership. 

This is Nancy Frates. You might not know her by name, but she's the one who started the Ice Bucket Challenge Movement for ALS. Her TED Talk below explains how this movement came about after her son was diagnosed with ALS.

How is this invisible leadership? This wasn't about Nancy, it was about the movement. Invisible leadership is people coming together for a common purpose that inspires and motivates people to take action, just like the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge did.

It wasn't about a charismatic person. Or some great inspirational leader. Or someone with all the right traits or skills. It was about an idea, about a mission, a goal. It was invisible leadership.

Invisible leadership isn't new, this phenomenon was first identified back in 1928.

We can see this happening throughout history... people are inspired by an idea that is bigger than the individuals within it. 

The "leaders" are less important that the spirit behind the movement.

That's not to say there aren't leaders in the more traditional sense. The Civil Rights Movement could be characterized as a leaderless movement, but that doesn't mean that Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't an inspirational leader... but the Civil Rights Movement was bigger than one man.

 Gill Robinson Hickman and Georgia J. Sorenson have written about this in their book, The Power of Invisible Leadership: How a Compelling Common Purpose Inspires Exceptional Leadership.

They outline what they consider the "Essence of Invisible Leadership"...

-A compelling and deeply held common purpose
-A readiness to use individual strengths in a leadership or follower position without visible recognition or personal ego
-A strong shared bond among participants pursuing the common purpose

You can read the entire first chapter online.

The point is, sometimes, we place too much emphasis on who is the leader... Or what skills or traits we need to be a good leader.

Sometimes, the best leader is the invisible, intangible leader... a common purpose, a common cause. It isn't about who's in charge- its about inspiring others, passing on the fire that motivates you.

So, if there's something you're passionate about, a movement or a change you want to start, let the purpose be the leader. Do what you can to pass along the passion, let the movement be the leader- it can spread and be bigger than one person.

I think the case study my group is working on is another good example. One student had an idea of how she could help fight food insecurity. The food pantry she created, 209 Manna Ministries, has grown. It now serves more than 100 students each month. It started off as one person's idea, but it's grown bigger beyond one person... and now that the founder is graduating, it will continue to grow, because of invisible leadership. 

209 Manna Ministries has the essence of invisible leadership: Strong purpose, and individual who leaders without ego or a need for recognition, and a shared bond among the participants to work toward their shared goal.

Strengths Based Leadership

This unit for my leadership one of the theories is Gallup's StrengthFinder 2.0. We've started reading Gallup's Strength Based Leadership.  So often, people focus on fixing their weaknesses, which can keep people from failing. However, focusing on strengths means finding success. Furthermore, really using your strengths, being challenged in just the right way, you won't even notice you're working.

The assessment is available online. The general test will give you your top five strengths but the full test is available with a full ranking of all 34 strengths. 

Gallup divides strengths into "The Four Domains of Leadership", Executing, Influencing, Relationship Building, and Strategic Thinking. 

What's important to remember about the strengths, is that at this moment, they're more talents that can be cultivated into strengths. Who you are, what you have now, is more the raw materials that can become strengths. 

My number one strength is deliberative. 

So what? Why is this important?

When I first got my results, all I saw was the raw materials of the "deliberative" strength. I overthink most things and I spend too much time researching something that doesn't need that much attention. I have skill, but making it a strength means learning to use it in the right way and at the right time. 

StrengthsFinder isn't meant to say, "This is what you're good at"... it's "You have talent in this area, if you work at cultivating this talent, it can be a strength for you." So no, we aren't focusing on weaknesses, but we also aren't just saying these are our strengths and we're done. These talents are just the areas where we should be focusing time and energy on improving.

The Huffington Post wrote an article on StrengthsFinder, and they highlighted that what people really want in a leader isn't someone perfectly well rounded, but someone who focuses on their strengths, and the strengths of their followers. Not all people will be good at everything, and it seems silly to expect all people to have the same strengths. People "feel well-placed and gratified when the demands of the job fit with their best talents." 

So now what?

Forbes Magazine wrote a great article on Strengths.

"The simple truth is that if we stop trying to “fix” our employees and rather focus on their strengths and their passions, we can create a fervent army of brand evangelists who, when empowered, could take our brand and our products to a whole new level."

Working with the students I advise, it is important that I don't expect every student to have the same skill sets. Some students will be better at some things than others and it is important that I help the students utilize their strengths. I am currently planning an end of the semester retreat with my student group where we will talk about strengths and how we can use that to make the organization better.

As the group does a lot of programming, those with strategic thinking skills will help the group foresee possible problems. Those with executing skills can make sure things get done. Influencing and relationship building strengths will help bring us all together as a group, these students will motivate volunteers and ensure a successful program.

The key to using your strengths, and enabling others to use theirs is by first knowing what your strengths are. From there we'll focus on how those strengths can make the students, and the group successful.

Focus on Followers

Everyone can agree leadership is important. I'd also chance that most people would rather be a leader than a follower... but why? Why is there a stigma about being a follower? Realistically, everyone will be a follower for far more of their life than they will be a leader. Everyone answers to someone else. We all follow before we lead.

In traditional leadership theories, followers are often seen as the blank slates, just receiving the influence and direction given to us by leaders. Sometimes these theories take into account that leaders need to adapt to followers… but more often followers aren’t given much thought.

Some more recent leadership theories have begun to focus on followers. A leader is only a leader if someone follows them, otherwise they’re just a person with an idea.

Leaders need followers.

Followers create leadership. In general, if followers don’t like someone, if they don’t agree with someone, they aren’t going to follow them. (There are of course exceptions where there are followers who follow unquestioningly, or those who lead through fear and coercion.)

So what? We’re all followers, it’s not possible to be a leader all the time… and even if it were possible, are you always the right leader all the time? No one person is going to be the best person for the job.

I would suggest that instead of thinking of leadership as the right person to lead, we should be think about who is the best person to lead us at this moment. Who is the best person to lead us through this task, problem, or time? We should lead when we are the best person for the job, we should follow when there is someone else better suited for the job. You don’t have to be one of the other, you can be, and should be, both.

Now what?

We need to recognize that we can’t always be a leader. There is nothing shameful in following. When you’re the best person for the job, lead. When someone else is the best person, be a leader and encourage them to step up. There is value in following. And there is tremendous value in helping others become leaders, encouraging them to take on new challenges.  

No one can be a leader all the time. 

Why Study Leadership?

Why study leadership?

Everyone has their own ideas about leadership. Ask anyone, and they'll list off what it means to be a leader. It's often a list of traits- sometimes it's things a person can cultivate, other times it's something inborn and innate.

So if everyone can describe a leader, why study it? Because if you ask 30 people about what makes a leader and you'll get 30 answers. 

We have preconceived notions about leaders and leadership, but that doesn’t mean we’re right. By studying leadership we can challenge our assumptions about what it means to be a leader.  Business News Daily explored just this topic in a recent article, 30 Ways to Define Leadership. We should study leadership because no situation is alike. And sometimes, we can't even put a finger on what makes the difference. 

There was a story on NPR's Fresh Air this week about the new book, Intangiball: The Subtle Things That Win Baseball Games. Lonnie Wheeler makes the argument that sometimes real leadership isn't about the specific statistics one player has, but how a player can be invaluable by how they make the other players on the team better. It’s not necessarily something that you can point to, but it makes a big difference.

Why am I studying leadership?

I am currently the GA for the Virginia Tech Union. I enjoy the position because I enjoy working with the executive board of the organization. I see my position as empowering others. With changes in our leadership, I became the quasi-supervisor.  For me, this position is about developing students, helping them reach their full potential. It is important that I work with the students, it’s not about doing something to or for the students. I’m here to support the students, allowing them to be leaders within the organization.

I’m there to talk through problems or issues, but it isn’t about giving them answers. It doesn't matter if I see what went wrong, what matters is helping the student see what went wrong, guiding them to the answer, not giving it to them.

Okay, so what?

To me, leadership isn’t about a title or the position, and it isn’t about power. Leadership is about what a person accomplishes. Since what makes a good leader is elusive, it requires attention and thought.  Leadership studies is an interdisciplinary field and there are lots of minds coming together to debate this topic. So much emphasis is being put on students to become effective leaders, how can I help them?

How can I help my executive board to become leaders? How can I help foster the traits that we seek and desire in our leaders? Confidence, integrity, connection, resilience, and aspiration? Strong leadership is essential for an organization to prosper, to become effective and effective.

And encouraging these “leadership” traits isn’t enough. How can I help them cultivate followers?

Now what?

Brad Jackson and Ken Parry suggest several ways to study leadership in their book. We can talk, read and write about leadership. You can observe others leading and you can try to lead yourself. It is my goal through my class on leadership to do more talking, reading, writing, and observing.  I want to know how I can inspire others and help develop others as leaders. I want to be knowledgeable about leadership theory so I can pass those tools onto my students. Different situations will require different type of leadership, not every problem can be solved the same way. How can I help empower the students I work with?

Leadership might be intangible, but we know it when we see it. And I want to see it in my students.