Micro Organizational Behaviour

Last week Indira Naidoo Harris was a guest host for the CBC Radio One program The Current, and spoke with Lanny Davis, former special legal counsel to Bill Clinton. “Conversation” may be the wrong word for the exchange; “interview” also seems to miss the mark. The topic of the exchange was Hillary Clinton’s appropriateness for the position of United States of America Secretary of State under president-elect Barack Obama.

Some “conversations” are difficult; many more difficult than they have to be. This exchange was clearly both, as pointed out by the National Post in print and online. Mr. Davis gave not an inch, and immediately began the “interview” by calling out the “innuendo” of the Harris’s introduction. He then demanded “facts” to support the allegations. Apparently, he would have settled for just one, but none were forthcoming. It was a strange moment when Harris tried to move on by empathizing as to “difficulties” that Davis must be having with the “issues.” It sounds like a suggested phrase from self-help book on “Active Listening.” Davis was not to be appeased: “give me the facts.”

It is good to hear an exchange where one side gives the other no benefit of the doubt, because, from my perspective, a number of these conversations don’t happen because of the promised contentiousness. This type of conflict, however, is the reality of pushing against resistance in the form of someone who will attack everything you say. This can be especially true if the exchange has an audience. It is not about how you deliver your message; it comes down to what you are saying. (But imagine if they had been e-mailing each other!)

These conversations are good practice for reaching out of our in-groups. I would suggest that often we rely on another’s trust (or disengagement from the situation) to get away with not supporting our position sufficiently, if at all. Pushback is good practice, and demonstrates engagement. I would hope that Ms. Harris learned from the exchange.

I don’t suggest that the answer is to prep for every interaction like you are speaking to the Fifth Estate, or The Current for that matter. Some situations, such as a job interview, can add a degree of healthy “defense” that drives us to spend some time fact checking in order to have our support at the ready. It doesn’t have to be contentious, but conflict can call out some ideas that may be unchallenged but can’t be well supported.

Stephen Friedman writes about the “The blame game” in this weeks Financial Post. I agree 100% that blame can be poison in an organization, and, as the legal professional is keenly aware, determining who is at fault can be a long process that can be well removed from objective reasoning.

In the past, I have adopted the stance of “pin it on me and let’s move forward” with some success. There is a dangerous balance when it comes to taking this acceptance too lightly, as I have on occasion. Chalk up short-term gain of not having to worry about whose fault it is; the danger, however, lies in the long-term issue of “well, you have made these kind of mistakes before.”

Prof. Friedman suggests that a boss will need to give the employee the benefit of the doubt that the fault does indeed lie with the client (and not, presumably, the account manager or consultant). One has to be aware of the one’s own benefit-of-the-doubt status with others (e.g. bosses), and whether that particular equity rising or falling. If your reputation is strong enough that it can withstand a stain or two, falling on the sword may be the path of least resistance and fastest route to a resolution. If your reputation needs strengthening, be wary of (unduly) accepting yet more undeserved blame.

Picking battles becomes very important. Going through the steps of establishing a solid benefit of the doubt can give you the leeway of forgoing a battle of blame to focus–as Prof. Friedman suggests–on solutions.