Principles, Power & Personality

(As promised, here is a re-working of a piece I posted back in 2022)

 

Who amongst us has not at some time or other had a confrontation with authority? How many of us have ended up feeling wronged, betrayed, unheard, undervalued, not given due process or consideration? What might have helped both sides have more fruitful and just conversations? Here is my “3P” look at precisely that question. 

 

Principles: Most every major conflict I’ve had with the administration in various settings begins from what I perceive as a violation of a principle. It might be a principle publicly stated in a Mission Statement or an unspoken one that I imagined as an agreement, but perhaps wasn’t felt as such by the other. In either case, the conflict invited a necessary conversation that would bring all parties closer to clarity on who we are collectively, what we agreed upon to value, what we’re structuring our decisions and our work around to uphold and move forward. With this understanding, any conflict or disagreement or misunderstanding should be welcomed as a necessary step to furthering our spoken Mission Statement and/or helping to articulate out loud our unspoken shared values. 

 

Politics: Problems begin to arise when the conversation is held within the parameters of political power. When one of the two sides holds the power to decide the outcome regardless of the logic of the argument, to determine how much they’re willing to discuss the issue, to shut down the conversation if they feel threatened politically, philosophically, or personally, things start to veer off course. Instead of a needed and welcome conversation clarifying principles, one that would benefit everyone in the community, it becomes a political power struggle, with one side flexing muscle they didn’t necessarily earn and the other feeling shut down, shut out, or shut up by the uneven power dynamic. 

 

Personality: Everything gets muddied yet further when personality enters the mix, as it always does. Instead of focusing on the actual issue, it becomes a character attack, with one person accused of talking too loud, another of not listening until it escalates into a vicious name-calling that completely ignores the actual issue that needs to be discussed. When things become personal, the waters get muddied.

Does any of this sound familiar? If we are armed with awareness of this patterned behavior, we have the possibility of steering the conversation back to where it belongs. Refuse to engage in or acknowledge the name-calling, set aside the power dynamic (knowing that at the end, one of the two sides will ultimately get to make a decision) and stay focused on the principle at stake and the effect it will have on the community and the Mission Statement. 

 

Sounds easy, yes? Except for one non-negotiable fact. We are deeply flawed human beings whose emotions almost always wrestle our logic to the ground, whose democratic systems of shared power and checks and balances keeps veering to the right. But at the very least, awareness of the three P’s and their proper order and balance gives the possibility of re-directed the needed conversations we keep refusing to have. It could help the whistle-blower understand that their personality and “issues with authority” might be a part of the game, but fundamentally, it is their dedication to inclusive and life-affirming principles that is at the heart of the matter. We all should be proud of standing up for that, to refuse the shame those in power hurl at us and passive bystanders agree to by their silence. 

 

In moments of conflict, how would the conversation change if it began with questions like these?

 

1) What is the principle at stake here? Are we actually in agreement about the principle and if not, can we agree to disagree? Can we begin the conversation focusing only on the principle, drawing from the Mission Statement, the By-Laws, the spoken and unspoken ethics of our organization? Who has overstepped the moral or legal codes that are essential to our organization’s identity and purpose, how have they done so, what is an appropriate consequence? 

 

2) Who holds the power here and how does that affect the conversation? Can we try to equalize the playing field for the sake of a better discussion? Recognizing that someone or some group might hold the power to make a final decision, can we take it off the table at the beginning of the conversation and see how that changes the discussion? Can we consider ways in which the entire community weighs in, again focusing on principle first and foremost? 

 

3) While acknowledging the role of personality— different styles of arguing, different relationships with conflict, different histories of hurt feelings— can we lay it to the side and return to the main point? Can we veer away from making it personal or taking it personally and stick to the real issue? Though at the end of the matter, there might be acknowledgment of personality issues and/or damaged relationships that might bear discussion and need some healing, can we keep that conversation separate from the principle at stake?

 

When power asserts itself without apology, when conflict becomes name-calling, when principles get lost in the shuffle and needed conversations are hidden behind the catch-words, then “something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” Keep your nose alert and tune your ear to certain phrases that are often used, then translate them as follows:

 

• “Transparency” means “We are hiding something.”

• “Confidentiality” means “We are hiding something and that’s how we do it.”

• “Trust the process” means “This way, we can keep asserting our power under the disguise of inclusion.”

• “We all have good intentions” means “But our position of authority means that we’re not required to follow them. We appear to be on your side but actually we’re not.”

 

 When this leadership playbook is in play, then it usually follows that trust is eroded, all sense of common purpose is threatened, all genuine experience of community is gone.  

 

Conversely, when a transgression is apparent, from either the people in authority or the people lower down in the power structure, conversations that include the community voice help preserve the sense of common purpose and belonging. Appropriate consequences born from direct, honest conversation tend to reveal themselves. A sense of justice prevails when autocratic power steps to the side. All of the above serve to strengthen the community and everyone wins. 

 

This requires hard work, courageous conversation, genuine caring and a carefully crafted intelligence. No easy solutions or simple steps or one-size-fits-all procedure. These things will not be resolved by texts or e-mails or even Zoom calls. Nor by committees or sub-committees or Human Resources people hired by the people in power.  Just good, honest, face-to-face conversation around a table. Better yet if the table is set with a delicious meal. 

Shall we try it? Nothing to lose here, everything to gain.