Managing Leadership^®

In the midst of political campaigns – particularly in long and arduous ones such as the presidential race now drawing to a close in the United States – it can become difficult to keep our perspective. We all know that similarly distorting and disorienting political dynamics can disturb our clarity at work, as well.

We become so immersed in the close combat of a contest that we forget why we entered into it. We are unable to imagine a satisfactory emergence from it short of our complete victory and the other side’s unconditional surrender.

We forget that we are all in this together. When the battle is done, our opponents – whether victor or victim – will still be our neighbors and, hopefully, our collaborators.

The inherently antagonist nature of a debate – whether about public policy, corporate strategy, or personnel assignment procedure – is designed to highlight not our personal differences, but to uncover and illuminate the numerous facets of the issues over which we contend. It is also worth remembering that it is not merely for our audience’s enlightenment that we debate, but for our own.

John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, has this to say about suppression of freedom of expression; it is relevant here:

If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

That is a great thing about a debate for the debaters as well as the observers. Everyone can win. Whether you persuade or are persuaded, you leave with a deeper and richer appreciation of your position. Even if the arguers sway no one, this result can obtain relatively for each side – or the resulting uncertainty and indecision can serve to drive much-needed further examination and discussion.

But in order to benefit from this, you must be prepared to acknowledge its presence. And the key to doing that is, as in so many things, remembering that it’s not about you. It’s not even about the cause you fight for. It’s about the greater purpose or larger entity that that cause is intended to serve.

The 19th century English philosopher and theologian Richard Whately is perhaps best known today for the following, which incorporates this idea:

Everyone wishes to have truth on his side, but it is not everyone who sincerely wishes to be on the side of truth.”

It is important, in the midst of contentious disagreements over important matters, to pull back from the ranks in which we find ourselves, and recall to mind the communities and organizations both we and our disputants share. Then, perhaps, we can better consider what the truth looks like from that perspective, and introduce the results into the discussion – or, at least, into our own thinking as we contribute to the debate and its aftermath.

—

Today’s tips: Speaking of factors to introduce into a discussion, please see this WSJ piece about the role DNA records – or even full genomes – may play in future political elections or executive searches.

And once you’ve used integrated perspective and focus to inform a cause you are determined to promote, please be sure also to view this essay by Steve Roesler about how to introduce something new at work.

—

We appreciate your visits here very much, and would love to have you as a regular reader. Please take a moment to subscribe, either by email or via an RSS reader, using the options available just below or at the upper right. And welcome aboard!

Technorati Tags: United States, debate, policy, strategy, procedure, John Stuart Mill, freedom, truth, English, Richard Whately, organization, perspective, WSJ, DNA, genome, executive, focus, Steve Roesler