The Healthy Side of Conflict

I REMEMBER WELL A MEETING WHERE A COUPLE of board members engaged in a passionate exchange that left some of us around the table lamely floating compromises and the rest of us merely spectating. While it was a tough discussion (and tough to sit through), it remained "gloves-on" and civil. It was just tough, but in the long run, I think necessary.

A few months later, this same board convened by phone, and with some new members on board. The topic that had caused the previously heated discussion, was now dealt with calmly and strategically. The meeting concluded with a plan of action to move us forward.

A group dynamics expert would be able to pick apart what worked and why in a hot minute. Here's my non-expert take:

At the first meeting, the topic hadn't been discussed previously as thoroughly by that particular group of board members. The focus of the discussion was on recapping past actions and evaluating whether the "right" decisions were made. There were some board members new to the conversation and they had lots of questions, which put veterans of the issue on the defensive. Lesson: new voices in an old conversation will have a lot of questions about what's gone on before. New voices also bring new perspectives to past actions. As a group, how far do you backtrack through decision-making and to what end?

The second meeting had new voices, too, but the focus of the discussion this time around was moving forward, not looking back. The discussion required problem-solving skills, not butt-covering ones (personally, I see these two skills as completely different, don't you?). The new voices came with new approaches that happened to help move the discussion forward really well. Did being on the phone instead of face-to-face help or hinder? Most people will agree that face-to-face is usually better, but in this instance it didn't seem to matter much. Lesson: even though there was some summarizing of the issue for the new folks, the emphasis this time was on moving forward and the board members were ready for it. Framing difficult issues prior to discussion is really important.

I think the second conversation also worked better for the folks who'd been at both meetings precisely because a difficult, air-clearing conversation had already been had.

Last night I watched the first installment of PBS's new documentary, This Emotional Life. One of the group dynamics experts noted that conflict is inevitable when groups of people come together, whether it's a group of friends or a board of directors. If the group tries to sweep conflict under the rug -- ignore it or smooth it over -- the chances are very good that it will reappear more intensively at a later time, so best to deal with conflict right away when it's small and manageable.

Addressing conflict in a healthy way is one way groups grow. It can deepen relationships and commitment, also.

I don't know if my board example did much right in handling this particular conflict -- it was really the first time this board had experienced conflict in a very long time. But, I think the group regrouped in a positive way that gives me a sense of confidence for their future discussions.

Stay tuned.

Photo: Struggle (Chess I) from Shyald

Back in the Saddle

MY LAST POST WAS NOVEMBER 2012, A LIGHT YEAR AWAY it seems, that marked the beginning of a long push toward completing a manuscript on history museum leadership with my co-author, Joan Baldwin. We finally submitted 350+ pages to our editor at Rowman & Littlefield this week. If all goes well, we expect the book to be available in early 2014. It's taken us two years to get to this point, so six more months or so of revision and production don't seem too long to wait until we can hold the final product in our hands (and you can, too!). The project put a lot of things on hold, including this blog. I'm glad to be back writing about intentional leadership -- leading by design -- for nonprofit boards and staffs. Certainly, my thoughts are now informed by the forthcoming book, in which Joan and I posit that nonprofits need to focus resources on leadership, not just management. Most cultural nonprofits are at a crossroad, as is the sector in general, where nothing is qu

Change for Your Board in 2010: A Polling Update

WE'RE A DAY INTO MY LAST POLL (SEE RIGHT) AND the responses are clustering in two areas: 1) removing dead wood from the board and 2) using better/different tools to make decisions/evaluate performance. There are still six days left for your colleagues to cast their vote! In the meantime, those of you who are in need of tools for decision-making might want to check my posts on taking stock here , here and here .

Three Most Important Nonprofit Executive Director Soft Skills

If you were asked to narrow down the list of executive director qualifications to the three most important, which ones would you identify? Would the list consist of soft skills, hard skills, or some combination? Would your list be based on the great ED you are or one you've worked for, or would it be your wish list for the ED you haven't been fortunate yet to work for? This was an assignment in my recent online class in leadership and administration for the American Association for State and Local History . I asked the class to review three-five advertisements for museum directors and analyze what these listings intimated about the organization’s past experience, current focus and goals, and future aspirations. Then, I asked the class to identify what they consider to be the three most important qualifications they would look for in a director. (Okay, so there's more than three if you dissect my three big groups.) Soft skills outnumbered hard skills, although

Leading by Design

Search This Blog