Conflict – DNC-Consulting

LIC and The Department of Veterans Affairs

What is LIC?

Low-Intensity Conflict (LIC) is the official name for when individuals or governments hire intermediaries to conduct violent operations from a secure position. LIC is a misnomer; those who have become victims of the barbaric cruelty of those practicing LIC find nothing “Low” about the experience. The conflict is intense, the actions brutal, and the practitioners remain cunning adversaries using and employing willing dupes to hide the true depths of moral decay inherent in the societal destructions and depravations the practitioners are enacting. Many confuse LIC in describing the actions of unbridled violence committed by ideologues under the banner of terrorism. The US Military Joint Chiefs of Staff define LIC as:

“A limited political-military struggle to achieve political, social, economic, or psychological objectives. It is often protracted and ranges from diplomatic, economic, and psychological pressures through terrorism and insurgency. Low-intensity conflict is generally confined to a geographic area and is often characterized by constraints on the weaponry, tactics, and levels of violence (Tinder 1990) [emphasis mine].”

Green (1997) adds a key ingredient to the description of LIC from Tinder (1990).

“… Non-international conflict is a refined term for what [was] formerly known as revolutions or civil wars, particularly when these have developed into major operations with the likelihood or reality of atrocities being committed against non-combatants. Whether civilians or those [rendered] hors de combat, a fact that is often more common in non-international … conflicts, especially when ideological, ethnic, or religious differences are in issue. It is for this reason that it must be borne in mind that the term low-intensity [conflict] has no relation to the severity or violence of the conflict” [emphasis mine].

Lt. Colonel Alan J. Tinder wrote a paper for the Air War College in 1990 titled: “Low-Intensity Conflict.” I have learned much from the Colonel and benchmarked this principle to more thoroughly understand LIC, recognize LIC, and detail LIC for others. The other compelling source is L. C. Green’s paper on “Low-Intensity Conflict and the Law.” I aim to synthesize this information into a manageable topic and aid understanding. Let me state emphatically that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) leadership’s actions are nothing short of LIC where employees and veterans/customers are concerned.

Regularly, the Department of Veterans Affairs – Office of Inspector General (VA-OIG) reports on a comprehensive healthcare inspection of a VHA facility, reports on employee morale in the VBA, or sum analysis of an employee or customer surveys, and include in the report a fairly descriptive, yet starkly utilitarian phrase, “reduce staff feelings of moral distress at work.” Generally, the efforts to reduce “moral distress” is left to an underling, an assistant, or a person for whom this is a secondary or collateral duty and is not considered important or relevant.

Do the actions of a leader represent complicity in creating moral distress fit the general definition of LIC? Absolutely. Consider that the leader sets the culture through actions, words, and behaviors, which originate in the thoughts and feelings of the leader. Correcting moral distress is pawned off on a junior staff member as a collateral duty, another method for displaying disrespect and communicating principles of abuse to employees. But there is no physical violence; how does this apply to LIC? Aren’t dead veterans’ examples enough of violent tendencies to justify the definition of LIC? The VA leader operates from a place of security, exemplifies the culture they deem acceptable, and then works through minions to achieve a “to achieve the political, social, economic, or psychological objective.”

Never forget these two critical points in the description of LIC:

“Often protracted and ranges from diplomatic, economic, and psychological pressures.”

“LIC has no relation to the severity or violence of the conflict.”

At the VA, the leadership calls their example politics; keeping your position or advancing is economical, and the psychological pressure to conform is palpable. All fundamental keys to conducting LIC against veterans, taxpayers, dependents, and non-conforming employees. Multiple times Congress has held hearings and listened to how the VA Leadership exacted revenge and retaliation upon those who reported problems to the VA-OIG, their elected congressional leaders, and other investigative parties. Feel free to peruse some of these hearings; you will hear victims relating physical, economic, and mental abuse, and the VA leadership never takes action. Elected officials never scrutinize and hold accountable those executing LIC, and the victims are victimized a second time.

Want another indicator that LIC is being practiced, the VA-OIG, after learning there are problems with moral distress at work, makes the following to slide the issues under the proverbial rub:

“The OIG’s review of the medical center … did not identify any substantial organizational risk factors.”

Signifying that even though the VA-OIG found moral distress is affecting and influencing employee behavior, the VA considers employee moral distress not an “organizational risk factor.” What does an employee who feels morally distressed do in performing their duties? Delay patients’ appointments, make mistakes on medication shipped, slow walk any responsibility to make things more complicated and take longer than they should. Does any of these actions sound familiar; they should, for this is the standard operating procedure for VA employees.

As reported previously, while I worked at the VA, I had intimate observations of what morally distressed employees do. When I wrote to the VA-OIG, I was informed that since I had my employment terminated, I could not be a whistleblower and get my job back. Plus, what I reported could not be actioned because it did not apply. How’s that for protecting the guilty? The VA Leadership is writing procedures and policies to target anyone and everyone who would report problems and seek help. An employee physically assaulted me; the camera mysteriously broke when I reported it, so no evidence was available. Who was at fault? Me; the assistant director promoted the attacker, and I got ostracized. The attacking employee took moral distress to new heights after this incident, and anyone who reported their behavior felt the wrath of the attacker and the VA leadership at the Albuquerque VAMC.

What is horrendous, this is not an isolated incident. What happened to me frequently repeats daily across every VA office. LIC is the overarching term, LIC is the behaviors named, and LIC is what the taxpayers are forced to pay for, all at the expense of veterans, dependents, and employees who see, know, and can do nothing. Repetitions of moral distress in employees, reported by the VA-OIG, are more than 20 just in 2022. The problem is cultural, and the elected officials desperately need to begin doing their second job, scrutinizing the executive branch and holding people accountable, including canceling the retirement packages of those practicing LIC.

Before someone tries to make this a Republican vs. Democrat issue, it is NOT political. LIC is never political, just as LIC is never religious, never racist, not sexist, or any other distinction. These distinctions are excuses, and the reasons do not justify the means for being violent. The leadership at the VA, and many other government agencies, have found that abusing the taxpayer pays well, provides protection, and allows them to exercise dominion to their heart’s content, all with the power of government to justify their deeds.

Do you realize that the VA-OIG has a metric for measuring moral distress, and the only time the VA-OIG reports moral distress among employees is when the results are higher than national averages? How scary is that to ponder? The problem is so prevalent that it only warrants reporting when it exceeds the norm. Thus, moral distress is declared less frequently when the average worsens. Official protection for LIC is provided by LIC, increasing, and the taxpayer is footing the bill.

I have read reports where the moral distress has worsened from year to year. The same leaders exacerbating the problem of employee moral distress are promoted and moved instead of reprimanded, punished, or fired. One of the VA-OIG reports is particularly heinous in hiding moral distress in employees.

“Selected employee survey responses demonstrated satisfaction with leadership and maintenance of an environment where staff felt respected and discrimination was not tolerated. Patient experience survey data implied general satisfaction with the outpatient care provided; however, leaders had opportunities to improve inpatient care satisfaction [emphasis mine].”

Mark Twain is oft quoted as stating, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” How much more valid are these words when results are “selected,” “cherry-picked,” or allowed to “imply generalities?” Those who engage in LIC are criminals, they are comparable to terrorists, and they have infiltrated the bureaucratic halls of government. Employing government power, they form unholy unions with social media outlets and media companies to further silence and abuse, all while increasing protection.

Where does it end? How do we put paid to the tyranny?

It ends when ordinary people decide they have had enough. Ending the LIC-powered tyranny requires nothing more than elected officials scrutinizing the government and doing the jobs they swore to commit. No violence, problematic or arduous tasks, merely following established law and doing the jobs we elected them to accomplish. LIC is always destroyed when the citizens being oppressed stand up for their rights and demand the bullies, tyrants, and fiends cease and desist!

Thomas Paine, writing in “Common Sense,” discussed simplicity, stating:

“I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple anything is, the less liable it is to be disordered; and the easier repaired when disordered.”

The American government was established on simplicity, and the US Constitution is a simple document. Using Thomas Paine’s pattern, the disorder in the government is simple to correct; all we need are people insisting that the infection is terminated. Using the systems established in the US Constitution, the US government can be brought to heel, the rot removed, and justice can be delivered to those tyrants employing LIC for personal gain and political profit. LIC is happening in every government agency, and it is time for change to begin. Where are the politicians willing to do the job we elected them to perform?

Mark Twain provides the final word, “The government of my country snubs honest simplicity but fondles artistic villainy, and I think I might have developed into a very capable pickpocket if I had remained in the public service a year or two.” From artistic villainy to LIC is not an arduous shift, merely the extension of abuse of power to a larger audience. Learn, choose, and then make your voice known through elections and peaceful assembly for redress per the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

© Copyright 2022 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the images. Quoted materials remain the property of the original author.

Leadership Series: Juran’s Rule and the Call Center

We have a problem, speaking plainly and simply; this problem is that a truth has been bent to escape responsibility. Tribus (n.d.) was plain and stated:

“WARNING: In presenting the reasons for change, the leader should accept the responsibility for whatever is wrong. Remember Juran’s rule:
WHENEVER THERE IS A PROBLEM 85% OF THE TIME, IT IS IN THE SYSTEM, ONLY 15% OF THE TIME WILL IT BE THE WORKER [emphasis in original].”

Please allow me to note that I have regularly advocated that Juran underestimated and personally have found that 90-95% of the time, the problem is the process, not the workers. This is my opinion, and I am not here to convince you but merely to help clarify Juran’s rule and provide some clarity on the writings of Tribus (n.d.) as well as build foundational understanding.

The Situation

A client company has a problem where managers are not holding their people to productivity standards. Deep diving into the situation, we find several fundamental issues, in no particular order:

- Human Resources tells operations what production goals can be.
- No production goal can be set where 75% of the workers cannot easily meet the goals set.
- Goals cannot be changed without HR approval, a lengthy research process, and a legal team review.
- No productivity goal is published. Feeder metrics, KPIs, and so forth are not communicated or standardized.
- No standard work crosses from one geographic location to another.
- Facility leaders might receive training in other facilities, but the training is broken and disjointed, and the regional managers charged with holding leaders to a standard lack standards and feeder metrics to hold facility leadership accountable across regional areas.
- Currently, no region or facility is meeting any goal regularly or uses a process that can be replicated.

Interestingly, this situation has existed for more than 15 years, and none in higher management remember a time when this situation was different. But, every manager will quote a version of Juran’s rule to explain why they are hunting for operational processes to review and change.

Conflict vs. Contention

At its most fundamental level, conflict is about helping spur growth and development and bringing about change in an organized and logical manner. However, I cannot stress this enough; conflict is NOT contention. Conflict is not born of pride and a desire to feel better about yourself through violence. Conflict can be observed in a disagreement or difference in opinion, but conflict does not include emotional hyperbole (pride). Conflict should be about mental disturbances spurred by people seeking greater ideas and ideals, personal growth, or team development. Does conflict lead to contention? Yes, but only because pride entered into the disagreement, emotions were injected, and desires to be right at any cost dictated, it is time for violence.

Let me be perfectly frank, contention and conflict are not the same. While the terms are close, they are distinct and tell different sides of the same story. First, contention is an act of striving or an assertion. Contention is a violent effort to obtain or protect something vehemently! There is effort, struggle, and exertion in contention; there are violent efforts, and the core of contention is pride. Pride breeds animosity, animosity breeds struggle, and struggle is contention, where pride demands that violence is acceptable to achieve the desired end goal. When contending, “The ends justify the means.”

Contention is animosity personified into action, effort, and desires become evident as contention unfolds. We cannot forget these facts about contention. Consider the following; I went to work in a hostile atmosphere; due to a contract signed, I could not quit and find a new job, and reassignment was not going to happen. Jealousy and pride entered because I was very good at my job, and violence followed like the sun rising after a moonless night. Contention was born and festered, violence was perpetrated against me, and the violence was acceptable to the organizational leaders as it gave them feelings of accomplishment and satisfaction.

The violence was justified because I was “too good” at my job, made “decisions above my paygrade,” and “I needed to be taught humility.” The result was four disastrous years of struggle, incredible stress levels, and mental torture, with physical acts of violence thrown in to spice up the environment. I am not bemoaning my fate nor holding myself up as an example of anything, merely hoping to convey that contention stunted organizational growth in everyone unlucky enough to experience this organization during this period. Contention is pride expressed through violence and justified to fit the individual’s desires.

Conflict is a tool; like all tools, it can build, enhance, strengthen, and create when used appropriately. If the tool is improperly used, destruction, damage, and chaos are spawned. Conflict happens; what a person chooses to do with that conflict and how that person considers conflicting occurrences is how the labels “good,” “bad,” “valuable,” “beneficial,” etc., are applied. McShane and Von Gilnow (2004, p. 390) postulated, “conflict as beneficial [when] intergroup conflict improves team dynamics, increase cohesiveness, and task orientation. [C]onditions of moderate conflict, motivates team members to work more efficiently toward goals increasing productivity.” The sentiment regarding conflict as a tool and beneficial is echoed throughout the research of Jehn (1995). Jehn (1995) reflected that the groups researched labeled the conflict as beneficial, good, bad, etc. Based on the group’s dynamics and the conflicts faced and settled, the groups formed an integrated model for organizational conflict. Essentially, how the conflict is approached and used by the team members individually and collectively dictates how beneficial the conflict is for the team and the organization.

Rao (2017) built upon previous researchers’ shoulders, perceiving conflict being a tool, and provided vital strategies for leaders to employ conflict. Rao (2017) provided that conflict builds character, whereas crisis defines character” [p. 93]. Rao (2017) recognized that conflict labels are an individual choice. In organizational conflict, one team could label the conflict as valuable and beneficial, while another department could label that same conflict as damaging and horrible. When the conflict in an organization has disparate labels, understanding why conflict is disparately evaluated remains more important than changing the label. Important to note, conflict is not competition, although occasionally used synonymously, there are important and distinct differences, important enough for a different article.

Thompson (2008) raised significant points regarding conflict, beginning with a real-life example of how conflict spurred organizational change and growth for the H. J. Heinz Co. Thompson (2008) calls those who actively work to avoid conflict as those taking “trips to Abilene;” included in those making trips to Abilene are those who take conflict personally and choose to become offended, as well as those who choose not to see conflict as a method of ignoring conflict. Thomas (1992) again captured how individual choices about the valuation of conflict open or close the door to the productive use of conflict. Ignoring conflict, avoiding conflict, and other strategies of not facing conflict form the most dangerous people to be around, for when conflict grows beyond a point where it can no longer be ignored or avoided, that conflict that can destroy people, places, and things.

Thomas (1992) echoes Jehn (1995), Lencioni (2002), and Thompson (2008) in declaring the distinction between conflict as a process and the structure in which the conflict process occurred is critical to how beneficial the conflict will be for the team, business, or society. Consider, for a moment the structure of the organizational environment. Conflict is the mental thinking, adherence to operating procedures, and individuals working who become the instigating factor, which threatens what is known or done at the current time. Hence, Thomas (1992) provided a keen insight into conflict as a tool, purposeful initiation of a process (conflict) to improve a structure (organizational environment).

When people recognize the power of conflict and purposefully employ conflict, everyone receives the potential to improve through conflict (Lencioni, 2002). Thus, conflict continues to be a tool, nothing more and nothing less. The disparities between organizational conflict labels are critical to understanding the chasm between teams evaluating conflict as the process and business structure. The gap in understanding conflict’s results can create inhibitions to future organizational conflict and create unnecessary additional conflict processes, all while undermining the organizational structure.

Tribus – Changing the Corporate Culture

Juran’s rule is prescient but based on several foundational situations underpinning their understanding; the following applies regardless of whether the organization is building a learning society or merely keeping the money tap flowing.

1. Operations, and by extension, operational goals, productivity standards, and processes for producing a product or service, are the sole domain of operations personnel. Does this preclude Human Resources from having a seat at the operations table; NO! Having HR dictate operational goals to operations is akin to having a bullet tell a shooter how to aim.
2. Training is a process. Training requires standards to judge performance as a means to declare training exceeded. However, the quality of training, and the proof of trained personnel, is not an HR function, nor is the trainer the sole person involved in judging the efficacy of producing trained personnel.
3. Organizational hierarchies are a process, the business culture is a process, learning is not training, and both learning and training are processes but have two different controlling entities; accountability and responsibility are a cultural extension of the process of organizing people into a functioning business organization.

Consider the fibers of an interwoven rope. Each fiber is twisted with other fibers, then these twists of fibers are turned into more twists, repeated until eventually building a finished rope. The same goes for these preceding foundational aspects. Operational principles make, like many fibers twist, into a rope that can secure a multiple hundred-ton ship to a pier. How the ropes are used is an operational process, but the core of the ropes are these essential aspects. Cut Rope with Rope - The Prepared Page

Some have argued, to their demise, that too many companies with this mindset are suffering from silo-mentality; when the obverse is true. Each department of a functioning business organization relies upon processes similar to these foundational fibers. Operations managers should not go into another business unit and expect to use the same tools from successful operations in those different business units.

For example, while I have been a successful operations manager, the tools I use in leading software teams are decidedly not the same tools I would employ on a production floor, even though both business units are expected to produce a product. The people are different, their approaches to problems are different, and the environments conducive to product delivery are dynamically opposed. Similarly, the tools HR would use to solve production issues are not opposed but definitely not employed similarly to those used in troubleshooting a problem in legal or accounting.

Juran understood these foundational situations, Tribus understood these foundational situations, and the best corporate leaders understand these foundational situations. However, Tribus made clear something dynamic, leadership is not management, and management never achieves anything. The dichotomies between leadership and management could not be more explicit in today’s business operations.

Tribus (n.d.) calls upon the words of Homer Sarasohn, stating [emphasis in original]:

“THE LEADER MUST, HIMSELF, BE AN EXAMPLE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN HIS FOLLOWERS.”

“Managers must practice what they preach.”

“DON’T SAY, “FOLLOW ME; I’M BEHIND YOU ALL THE WAY”
(IT MAKES EVERYONE GO IN CIRCLES).”

Application

What do we find in my client; managers who first do not know the work their operational employees do. Managers who are disconnected by good jobs to the point they never engage in the better and best jobs their positions of trust demand. The managers are not led but are managed and never were trained for their current positions. These three items are why the client company is a dumpster fire of potential (blue money), where the bottom line evaporates, and nobody can explain why. However, like in the Shakespearian play, “Much Ado About Nothing,” a lot of noise is made but goes nowhere fast!

Unfortunately, the much ado about nothing is worsened, not improved, by Kaizen, Six Sigma, Agile, and Lean efforts at process improvement. The core problems are considered “untouchable,” “too dynamic,” or “too extensive” ever to be improved upon, and the new manager settles to change an operational process instead of core problems. Essentially proclaiming, “Follow me, I’m behind you all the way,” the operational employees keep circling the drain.

What is the solution?

Solution generation for my client company begins with understanding the compelling evidence there is a problem. Right now, the client thinks, “We are big enough to absorb these insignificant issues in the name of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” This is where every business begins its failure; no business can long survive dumpster fires of potential (blue money). People leave, and this has a high replacement cost. People work slowly or below their potential, which is a tremendous cost in green (cash) money and potential (blue money). Operational costs increase, increasing customer costs and the loss of customers is a dynamic cost to the business.

After admitting a problem, the next step is envisioning an end state. Since I began to lead men and women, I have advocated a lesson I learned as a teenager, “Never take your body where your brain has not already traveled.” If you cannot envision the result, do not start trying to make changes until you have envisioned an end state. I sliced my fingers badly with a knife while cutting onions. Why did I slice my fingers and not the onion? I did not understand the end state and assumed I could start cutting and reach an acceptable end state (diced onion). I should never have started cutting; between the loss of the onion and the damage to my fingers, the lesson was not “Never cut onions again,” but “never begin something without a clear end state (goal) in mind.”

The third preparatory step to building a solution is START! The client has this problem of always wanting clear instructions, plans, and supplies on hand before beginning. The speed of business requires action, not plans and instructions. Take the first logical step and begin! Tribus (n.d.) makes this clear with the assurance, “There is a sensible first step,” take that step! I will reiterate a point Tribus (n.d.) makes, employees work IN a system of processes, and the manager should work ON the system of processes, with the employee’s help. A manager should be analogous to a mentor, who, like a leader, after understanding the vision, looks sideways and builds people to meet their level before taking that next logical step into the darkness.

Conclusion

The simple truth is that Juran’s rule has been used as an excuse to dodge responsibility in too many operations, businesses, and organizations. Like my client, the good news is that change is possible with the people you have right now. My client is not a bad company; your company is not inherently bad. People are intrinsically good, and when we better understand the fibers that help tie Juran’s rule to reality, we can employ reframing to shut down the noise and move from much ado about nothing to effective management and leadership. How do we reframe:

1. Establish legitimacy and shift from passive to active.
2. Bring outsiders into the discussion, but do not shift responsibility for developing the solution or owning the goals.
3. Get the stakeholder’s definitions in writing – Common words, AREN’T. Common understanding; is a goal to strive towards.
4. Ask what is missing
5. Consider multiple categories, seek out those subject matter experts, and add them to the discussion as equals
6. Analyze positive and negative data equally without bias
7. Question the objectives, focus on the future and keep moving forward.

As we, the leaders of call centers, strive to change our understanding, realize our roles, and build people, we will build people, not processes, to meet the future. The first step is committing to the decision framed in the question, “Is your company a money tap or a service to the greater good of society?”

References:

The references are included if you want to further research conflict as beneficial.

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123-148. doi:http://dx.doi.org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.2307/256633

Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive Effects of Conflict: A Cognitive Perspective. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 4(1), 25-36.

Brazzel, M. (2003). Chapter XIII: Diversity conflict and diversity conflict management. In D. L. Plummer (Ed.), Handbook of diversity management: Beyond awareness to competency based learning (pp. 363-406). Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.

Du, F., Erkens, D. H., & Xu, K. (2018). How trust in subordinates affects service quality: Evidence from a large property management firm. Business.Illinois.edu. Retrieved from https://business.illinois.edu/accountancy/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2018/03/Managerial-Symposium-2018-Session-IV-Du-Erkens-and-Xu.pdf

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multi-method exanimation of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons.

Lumineau, F., Eckerd, S., & Handley, S. (2015). Inter-organizational conflicts. Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation, 1(1), 42-64. doi:10.1177/2055563614568493

McShane, S. L., & Von Gilnow, M. A. (2004). Organizational Behavior, Third Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Moeller, C., & Kwantes, C. T. (2015). Too Much of a Good Thing? Emotional Intelligence and Interpersonal Conflict Behaviors. Journal of Social Psychology, 155(4), 314-324. doi:10.1080/00224545.2015.1007029

Rao, M. (2017). Tools and techniques to resolve organizational conflicts amicably. Industrial and Commercial Training, 49(2), 93-97. doi:10.1108/ict-05-2016-0030

Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265-274.

Thompson, L. L. (2008). Chapter 8: Conflict in teams – Leveraging differences to create opportunity. In Making the team: A guide for managers (3rd ed., pp. 201-220). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Reverence, Conflict, and Contention – Understanding Improves Capability

Several commenters have erroneously confused conflict and contention and harangued me for promoting conflict. With this article, I intend to dispel the confusion and encourage understanding. These three principles, reverence, conflict, and contention, are paradoxically connected, and a greater understanding is needed.

Reverence

Some of you think that reverence only belongs in church settings, and frankly, your lack of insight into this word is why we are discussing reverence. Please, turn off the voices in your head for a minute. M. Russell Ballard provided etymological understanding for the term reverences pertinent to this discussion.

“Reverence may be defined as profound respect mingled with love and awe. … The root word revere also implies an element of fear. Thus, reverence might be understood to mean an attitude of profound respect and love with a desire to honor and show gratitude with fear of breaking faith of offending.” – God’s Love for His Children

Webster also provides additional insight into reverence. Reverence contains definitions, including an action to show respect; a feeling of mingled awe, respect, and admiration; veneration; esteem heightened by awe (wonder), as of a superior; especially, such a feeling toward deity. Finally, we find more insight; reverence includes treating with profound awe (wonder) and respect, or veneration.

Many Christian religions sing a hymn that encapsulates reverence, “How Great Thou Art.” The first stanza is my favorite:

“O Lord my God!
When I in awesome wonder
consider all the works
Thy hands have made,
I see the stars,
I hear the rolling thunder,
the power throughout
the universe displayed.”

Take anything you see out your window right now. Flowers, trees, grass, snowfall, frost, cars, asphalt, window glass, etc., and consider the hands, science, and creation of that item with wonder. With awe, consider the birds, bugs, animals, humans in all their variety. Want to know a secret? You just showed reverence. More importantly, you made a choice to open your mind to see past the mundane and explore the higher plains of existence with your human eyes. What are the consequences of awe and wonder, joy! Reverence brings joy! Want to know another secret; one of the most challenging problems all societies face is choosing to show reverence and look with wonder and awe upon the world around us.

I can build a house; well used to be able to build a house, now all I can do is teach my skills to someone else. But, guess what, I am the first to declare I am no expert, and their remains much I can and want to learn. Want to know another secret; learning shows reverence and brings joy. I marvel in awe at craftsmen displaying their skills, be it building a house, fixing engines, creating delectable goodies, or simply watching small children explore the world, I choose to view in wonder the majesty around me, and this brings joy!

What is Joy? Why pursue Joy?

Joy is defined loosely by Webster as “Intense and especially ecstatic or exultant happiness.” But does not fully encapsulate what joy is; joy is mental peace, mingled with an uplifting spiritual feeling, leading to physical contentment and feelings of well-being. Joy is a pursuit, not the object, not the destination, and is a drug you can become addicted to quickly. However, pursuing joy for pleasure is a pathway to problems, for joy does not contain truth, only the recognition of accomplishment. Joy is a by-product of choices leading to success in achievement.

The pursuit of joy includes failure, feelings of hopelessness, and even despair, physical and mental pain, and anguish. Yet, joy is still sought and pursued, why; because at the end of the day, joy occurs when goals are accomplished, and in evaluating the goal, we find the struggle worthwhile! When we, as individuals, choose to stop pursuing joy or achieving a goal, we die inside, leading to physical and mental disease. This is why retirement is such a bad idea, why giving up is so physically, mentally, and spiritually destructive, the loss of joy can physically, mentally, and spiritually kill a person.

The lack of joy precedes a loss of hope, bringing with it soul-crushing despair, depression, and opening the door for that individual’s destruction. Why pursue joy; to avoid the death inherent in hopelessness.

Contention

Let me be perfectly frank, contention and conflict are not the same. While the terms are close, they are distinct and tell different sides of the same story. First, contention is an act of striving or an assertion. Contention is a violent effort to obtain or protect something vehemently! There is effort, struggle, exertion in contention; there are violent efforts, and the core of contention is pride. Pride breeds animosity, animosity breeds struggle, and struggle is contention, where pride is demanding that violence is acceptable as a means to achieve the desired end goal. When contending, “The ends justify the means.”

Contention is animosity personified into action, effort, and desires become evident as contention unfolds. We cannot forget these facts about contention. Consider the following; I went to work in a hostile atmosphere; due to a contract signed, I could not quit and find a new job, and reassignment was not going to happen. Jealousy and pride entered because I was very good at my job, and violence followed like the sun rising after a moonless night. The result was that contention was born and festered, violence was perpetrated against me, and the violence was acceptable to the leaders as it gave them feelings of accomplishment and satisfaction.

Conflict

I have written a lot about conflict, conflict’s benefits, how conflict is a tool, and the dark side of conflict. At its most fundamental level, conflict is all about helping spur growth, development and bring about change. However, I cannot stress this enough; conflict is NOT contention. Conflict is not born of pride and a desire to feel better about yourself through violence. Conflict can be observed in a disagreement or difference in opinion, but conflict does not include emotional hyperbole (pride). Conflict should be about mental disturbances spurred by people seeking greater ideas and ideals, personal growth, or team development. Does conflict lead to contention? Yes, because pride enters into the disagreement, emotions are injected, and desires to be right at any cost dictate it is time for violence.

My wife and I have a conflict. She does not like being mentioned, even obliquely, in these articles as she feels it is disrespectful. I disagree because she has achieved much, and when she is mentioned, even obliquely, it is not to denigrate or deride, but as an example of what can be achieved and what I want to become. She has gained a lot in self-mastery, and I long to learn how to achieve similarly; thus, it is not disrespect, but profound awe and wonder, mixed with desire, that I mention her.

Our marriage has been a long string of conflicts leading to personal growth, primarily for me. I have learned that when I feel my emotions begin to boil, it is not her that is wrong in the conflict, but me. Those emotions are pride screaming, “Oh, please let me be right!” When the reality is, if I took some time to cool down, mentally focus, and look at my perceptions, I could see where and how I was wrong. My parents possess a contentious relationship, and many times I have longed to see them divorce and go their separate ways. I have observed them get into physical fights, watched them argue over BS while something else was the real problem, and I have witnessed several seasons of intense warfare between them. Hence, I possess a motivating influence to be different, even if I have to unlearn and relearn.

Thus showcasing the significant difference between contention and conflict, growth never occurs in contention, EVER! Contention only breeds more violence, not personal growth, not individual development, not team cohesion and goal attainment. When the dust settles from contention, there are generally physical, mental, spiritual wounds and scorched earth between the opposing foes. In contrast, conflict breeds individual growth, personal strength, and goal success.

Leaders, followers, encourage conflict, teach how conflict can lead to contention, monitor conflict closely, and do not try to solve the conflict. Settle contention, but do not deprive people of conflict. Use wonder and awe as tools to breed an inquisitive nature and explore with a mind full of reverence. Therein lay the path to joy; pursue the path!

© Copyright 2021 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the images. Quoted materials remain the property of the original author.

Circling Back To The Power and Blessing of Conflict

Good Timber Recently I was asked an interesting question that needs further elaboration, than the 30-seconds I could devote to the answer. The question, “As a disabled person, in a professional setting (workplace), do I expect others to accommodate me?” At the time, I used pieces of Douglas Malloch’s poem “Good Timber” as an analogy to help answer this question, stating that a tree in a forest does not demand another tree stop growing in their direction for sunshine, air and water. Thus becoming a forest giant through individual growth, adaptation, individual choice, time, goal setting, and working with other trees.

Here is Douglas Malloch’s poem “Good Timber” declaring the natural law, “Conflict is Good!”

Good Timber
by Douglas Malloch

The tree that never had to fight
For sun and sky and air and light,
But stood out in the open plain
And always got its share of rain,
Never became a forest king
But lived and died a scrubby thing.

The man who never had to toil
To gain and farm his patch of soil,
Who never had to win his share
Of sun and sky and light and air,
Never became a manly man
But lived and died as he began.

Good timber does not grow with ease:
The stronger wind, the stronger trees;
The further sky, the greater length;
The more the storm, the more the strength.
By sun and cold, by rain and snow,
In trees and men good timbers grow.

Where thickest lies the forest growth,
We find the patriarchs of both.
And they hold counsel with the stars
Whose broken branches show the scars
Of many winds and much of strife.
This is the common law of life.

Discussion

?u=http3.bp.blogspot.com-CIl2VSm-mmgTZ0wMvH5UGIAAAAAAAAB20QA9_IiyVhYss1600showme_board3.jpg&f=1&nofb=1 True story, I learned to swim by being thrown into the deep end of a lake and told to get back to shore on my own; my mother was never one for “easy lessons.” The conflict made me understand and learn how to coordinate movement, and I learned to swim. Not well, and to this day, I swim like I am beating the water into submission, not in a manner that is conducive to smooth and flowing coordinated movement. The conflict of motion and resistance, movement and flow has taught me a lot about science, engineering, hydraulics, and much more; but I do not thank my mother for this “swimming” lesson!

Conflict clipart resolved, Conflict resolved Transparent ... As a process of learning and developing, conflict has been the driving factor in all of our lives. Conflict is a tool, and like all tools, when used appropriately, it can build, enhance, strengthen, and create. Whereas, if the tool is improperly used, destruction, damage, and chaos are spawned. Regardless, life lessons can be learned in both uses of conflict when two additional tools are added, self-reflection over time. It took a long time to realize the value of science in the lessons of swimming taught in almost drowning. Remember, the forest giant in Douglas Malloch’s poem did not become a forest king without scars.

Where thickest lies the forest growth,
We find the patriarchs of both.
And they hold counsel with the stars
Whose broken branches show the scars
Of many winds and much of strife.

Conflictpreventie en -management voor zorgverleners ... Conflict happens; what a person chooses to do with that conflict and how that person considers conflicting occurrences is how the labels “good,” “bad,” “valuable,” “beneficial,” etc., are applied. McShane and Von Gilnow (2004, p. 390) postulated, “conflict as beneficial [when] intergroup conflict improves team dynamics, increase cohesiveness, and task orientation. … [C]onditions of moderate conflict, motivates team members to work more efficiently toward goals increasing productivity.” The sentiment regarding conflict as a tool and beneficial is echoed throughout the research of Jehn (1995). Jehn (1995) reflected that the groups researched labeled the conflict as beneficial, good, bad, etc. based on the group’s dynamics and the conflicts faced and settled, the groups formed an integrated model for organizational conflict. Essentially, how the conflict is approached and used by the team members individually and collectively dictates how beneficial the conflict is for the team and the organization.

The stronger wind, the stronger trees;
The further sky, the greater length;
The more the storm, the more the strength.
By sun and cold, by rain and snow,
In trees and men good timbers grow.

Rao (2017) built upon previous researchers’ shoulders, perceiving conflict being a tool, and provided vital strategies for leaders to employ if they choose to minimize conflict; however, if conflict is minimized, a caution is required. Minimizing conflict just to minimize conflict is not the road to success, but the road to ruination. Douglas Malloch was quite clear on this point and it must be understood.

The tree that never had to fight
For sun and sky and air and light,
But stood out in the open plain
And always got its share of rain,
Never became a forest king
But lived and died a scrubby thing.

The man who never had to toil
To gain and farm his patch of soil,
Who never had to win his share
Of sun and sky and light and air,
Never became a manly man
But lived and died as he began.

PPT - Developing Your Conflict Competence PowerPoint ... Thus, it cannot be stated enough, nor without sufficient emphasis, the leader who chooses to minimize conflict is leading their team to destruction, ruination, and despair. But, isn’t the path of less conflict more restful and peaceful? What about all those people who claim conflict is bad, fighting and war are terrible things and should be avoided at all costs. Let us examine Douglas Malloch further:

Whose broken branches show the scars
Of many winds and much of strife.

Good Timber As a child, I had the privilege of examining up close and personal a forrest giant. The closest branch to the ground was 35’ in the air, the trunk had a girth of more than 25’, and the tree stood on the edge of an embankment. Gloriously large specimen of a maple tree. The tree hosted several families of squirrels, birds, and who knows how many other woodland creatures. When the tree was permanently damaged by a hurricane in 1989, a company paid my grandmother a princely sum to harvest this tree for the hardwood. My brother and I counted the rings to know the age of the tree and got to over 200 years. A true forrest giant indeed. As the tree was harvested for lumber, it was discovered the tree had been shot and wounded, several branches had been damaged by fire, multiple branches had been broken off and healed over, barbed wire was embedded in the tree and some wood was poisioned by the iron, and the harvester told us a lot about what the tree had experienced during its lifetime. Managed Quotes | Managed Sayings | Managed Picture Quotes

Rao (2017) intimated that “conflict builds character, whereas crisis defines character” [p. 93]. Recognizing that conflict labels are an individual choice, and character building is a choice left to the individual to onboard or shun, one is left with several questions, when conflict occurs, and crisis happen, what do you choose, fold or grow?

Kipling writes a “Just So Story” titled “The Tree and the Grass.” The tree boasts about its strength, its height, its ability, and strength, and one day the tree falls prey to the wind and falls. However, what is not clearly delineated, is that the tree is not in a forrest, but on a plain. The moral according to Kipling was that, one should “never condemn others looking at your greatness as nothing exists for ever.” While the moral is correct, and the lesson important, the fact that the conflict and crisis the tree faced, the wind, was on this occaision crippling and life shattering, is the cogent point for focus. Douglas Malloch points out another very important point:

The tree that never had to fight
For sun and sky and air and light,
But stood out in the open plain
And always got its share of rain,
Never became a forest king
But lived and died a scrubby thing.

The tree on the plain is never prepared for crisis and conflict, and falls prey to both due to a lack of preparation. The tree that is born into conflict and crisis is prepared from day one to understand the role of conflict and crisis, and then face both as friends and tools. Thus the problems with leaders who choose to avoid conflict and why these leaders will flail, fail, and lead their teams and businesses into failure and ruination.

Avoid Workplace Conflict Through Better Collaboration ... Thompson (2008) calls those who actively work to avoid conflict as those taking “trips to Abilene;” included in those making trips to Abilene are those who take conflict personally and choose to become offended, as well as those who choose not to see conflict, as a method of ignoring conflict. Thomas (1992) captured how individual choices about the valuation of conflict open or close the door to the productive use of conflict. Ignoring conflict, avoiding conflict, and other strategies to avoid conflict form the most dangerous people to be around, for when conflict grows beyond a point where it can no longer be ignored or avoided, that is the conflict that can destroy people, places, and things.

Thomas (1992) is echoe in Jehn (1995), Lencioni (2002), and Thompson (2008) declaring the distinction between conflict as a process and the structure in which the conflict process occurred is critical to how beneficial the conflict will be for the team, business, or society. Conflict is the mental thinking, adherence to operating procedures, and individuals working become the instigating factor, which is a threat to what is known or done at the current time. Hence, Thomas (1992) provided a keen insight into conflict as a tool, purposeful initiation of a process (conflict) to improve a structure (organizational environment). Cheryl Richardson Quote: "If you avoid conflict to keep ...

When people recognize the power of conflict and purposefully employ conflict, everyone receives the potential to improve through conflict (Lencioni, 2002). Thus, conflict continues to be a tool, nothing more and nothing less. The disparities between organizational conflict labels are critical to understanding the chasm between teams evaluating conflict as the process and business structure. The gap in understanding conflict’s results can create inhibitions to future organizational conflict and create unneeded additional conflict processes while undermining the organizational structure. Conflict Quotes - Famous Disagreement Quotations & Sayings

How will you choose to use conflict? Will you grow or fold? Will you break yourself to become better knowing that the deadwood you cast off is healthier long term than holding onto the past and pretending you are still able to hold onto everything? Will you keep an open wound instead of allowing time and healing to form a scar and a callous to protect you from additional injury? Is the injury worth growing or is the injury too much and it is time to fall and die? Conflict and crisis will define or defeat based solely upon the choices you make. How will you decide?

References

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123-148. doi:http://dx.doi.org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.2307/256633

Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive Effects of Conflict: A Cognitive Perspective. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 4(1), 25-36.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multi-method exanimation of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons.

Lumineau, F., Eckerd, S., & Handley, S. (2015). Inter-organizational conflicts. Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation, 1(1), 42-64. doi:10.1177/2055563614568493

McShane, S. L., & Von Gilnow, M. A. (2004). Organizational Behavior, Third Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Rao, M. (2017). Tools and techniques to resolve organizational conflicts amicably. Industrial and Commercial Training, 49(2), 93-97. doi:10.1108/ict-05-2016-0030

Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265-274.

Session Title: Able, Not Disabled, Not Differently-Abled

Introduction: The following are my notes delivered at a global conference for disability inclusion held 27 October 2021 regarding how to improve disability inclusion in the workplace.

Description: Increasing abilities by removing boundaries, discussing paths forward in ability inclusion, and building upon the great work Amazon and several other companies have done in pioneering disability inclusion in the workplace.

Welcome to a discussion on abled, not disabled, not differently-abled! I am glad you’re here! I am Dr. Dave Salisbury; I look to complete my Ph.D. in industrial and organizational psychology by November 2022; if you would like to participate in my dissertation, don’t hesitate to contact me outside this forum for more information. I possess an MBA in global management specializing in human resource management, a master’s in adult education design and training, and have been a business consultant since 2004. I am a dual-service US Army/US Navy disabled veteran.

My intent today is to help break down barriers so we can be comfortable around each other. So comfortable that we can share jokes about my disability, we can look past the twitches, the spasms, and the stutters and find common interests. Disability inclusion is precisely this, the inclusion into a society of those with disabilities to the point that we do not see the disability, we do not recognize the handicaps, and we can then work in an atmosphere of ability.

I have several disabilities, most stemming from injuries sustained in military service; some include my voice, some include neurological issues, and others are physical and mental. Regardless, as these injuries have increased in severity, my professional intent began to be recognized for my abilities, talents, skills, knowledge, and potential, not for my disabilities. Yet, I am often seen only as a disabled person or worse, a “token” disabled person filling a slot that another person could be occupying. I ran into this thinking in the Federal government, New Mexico State, Bernalillo County, and Albuquerque City government hiring practices as recently as 2019.

Earlier in my professional life as a disabled person, I was told not to be thinking of myself as disabled but as “differently-abled.” I am not differently abled! Differently abled draws lines and limitations; it separates people and places boxes on potential. Worse, it allows for the continued breeding of an “us against them” mentality, which breeds hostility and counterproductive beliefs. Thus, I refuse to be differently abled. I do not particularly appreciate being classified as disabled either.

Please allow me to digress for a moment. The transitive verb “dis” means to show disrespect, insult, or criticize. As a prefix, “dis” is defined as the opposite of something, depriving someone of something, excluding someone, or expelling someone. Thus, a disabled person is either being disrespected, insulted, criticized, deprived, excluded, expelled, or is the opposite of able. Frankly, I believe that when we are made aware of the etymology of words, we are then more aware of why people choose to adopt or not adopt certain words and labels. I repeat, only for emphasis, I do NOT particularly appreciate being classified as disabled, for I AM able!

Words and labels should not be the focus of our attention and efforts. I prefer handicapped to disabled based on the etymology, even though I don’t particularly appreciate being considered handicapped. A handicap can refer to a disadvantage in task completion, physical or mental disabilities, and can intentionally place a person at a disadvantage; there’s that “dis” again rearing it’s disrespect, insults, criticism, deprivation, exclusion, and expulsion. Please, let’s stop focusing on word games and plastic phrases; instead, let’s invest efforts in finding solutions to existing problems.

How big is the problem of word focus; in the past few weeks, there have been several email chains based solely on a person’s word choice preferences. I would venture to presume that not a single person intended to cause insult or denigrate a community member by using or not using a specific word, phrase, title, verb, adjective, etc. in describing a person or population in the community. Yet, people chose to take offense, and others rushed in to ameliorate the feelings of the one choosing to be offended at a word. Bringing up a fundamental aspect of disability inclusion, individual responsibility, accountability, or self-rule.

I am able! I take a little more time, need a couple of extra breaks, and use additional technology and equipment to complete tasks. I possess skills, talents, experiences, and knowledge valuable to situations, teams, and companies. I bring to the table unique perceptions, insights, and benchmarkable skills worthy of consideration. I bring formal and informal education and experience that is invaluable and immeasurably useful as an asset to the organization. I am all this long before we ever discuss my physical and mental concerns or disabilities.

My first priority is my personal safety and security; my first job is to look out for myself. Monitor what I am carrying, how far I must take it, doors, elevators, paths for egression in emergencies, methods for being warned, and what I can and cannot do. For example, as COVID-19 began, I knew I could not wear a mask and asked about those of us who could not wear a mask. I saw the confusion on faces. I witnessed the policy shifts, the harassment, the legal segregation, and suffered legal abuse and discrimination for not wearing a mask. I realize that eventually, my injuries will require my independence to be curtailed, and I will become more dependent. As such, I have to monitor what I can and cannot do constantly and clearly describe this to those I work with. The same should be true and expected of all people regardless of handicap or level of ability. Individual responsibility for safety, security, and health does not end just because they enter a building and should be stressed as a regular aspect of workplace safety.

Amazon has performed incredible work and is one of the few companies that has done pioneering work leading to real success in disability inclusion on a global scale. The question before us is where and how we build upon this work to improve the culture and potential of all employees, regardless of ability, in all industries and businesses, based upon the pioneering work of Amazon. I believe the following action items can be the building blocks to successfully enhance the inclusion of people of all abilities, talents, skills, and knowledge. I will revisit these questions when we get to the discussion portion; please consider these points.

Conflict is good, beneficial, and a tool that is useful for building people, teams, and businesses. Douglas Malloch wrote a timeless poem, “Good Timber,” which is the quintessential discussion on why and how conflict is good. Let us embrace conflict as the tool it is for improving people. A handout is available for further consideration on these topics, and all bullets discussed, with reference materials for additional research if you desire. Please send me an email if you would like these materials.
Leadership begins with followership; followership begins with being lifelong learners, learning requires opportunities to teach, teaching is a prerequisite to learning, and learning requires the ability to lead and apply. – These are merely starting points to understanding. They are facts.
1. 1. - Do we encourage delegation and learning through experience?
    - Do we embrace failure as a tool for lifelong learning?
    - Leadership is not a title; leadership is first an attitude, then an action, and finally a method of learning and teaching. How do we apply these truths in daily activities?
    - Leadership as an attitude is witnessed in good followership, even when our followers practice loyal opposition; are we embracing the loyal opposition? Do we know how to recognize the loyal opposition?
Flexibility and agility require open minds. Open minds need varieties in opinions, politics, beliefs, religions, and so much more. Open minds begin with lifelong learning! Lifelong learning requires self-reflection. – Again, we find fundamental truths, simply explained and expounded. How are we embracing these truths in daily practice? What actions are we supporting in the workplace to showcase support to and openness to variety in thinking and commitment to lifelong learning?
1. 1. - What book did you just read?
    - Did you share that book, recommending it to whom?
    - Were you excited about the book?
    - When was the last time you self-reflected?
Do you believe?
How will you act tomorrow?

Are there activities I cannot engage in? Yes. To my disappointment and chagrin, there are many activities I can no longer engage in. Stairs are a tremendous activity I have to avoid; yes, this includes sidewalk curbs. Standing and sitting for long periods have to be monitored and curtailed. Walking is another activity I have to be conscious of and monitor closely. I regularly mistake how long I have sat or walked and wind up in trouble breathing, or my legs give out from exhaustion. But, I should not have to get into some vast dramatic affair just because my abilities are curtailed physically or mentally. COVID-19 hit, I cannot wear a mask due to breathing issues; the mask mandates have been so embarrassing and challenging while also being segregationist, separatist, and legally expensive. Why are disabled people still challenged on their disabilities when we are already disrespected, insulted, criticized, deprived, excluded, and expelled for merely being less physically and mentally able?

Ask yourself this question, “When I see a maskless person, do I condemn them first or think maybe they have a reason?” That single decision is the key to the choice between building people and building disability thinking! I do not need your answer voiced; please consider your response now and think about when you will witness a maskless person the next time.

Has anyone taken a look at the processes for obtaining work accommodations? A work adjustment for a disability? A mask exemption? With all the differences in abilities, one would think the process would be straightforward to understand. Yet, the opposite is often the truth because we refuse to embrace that we are all able and are programmed to first separate into able and dis-(disrespected, insulted, criticized, deprived, excluded, expelled)- abled.

The last two questions are not included for any reason other than to spark a conversation inside you. Do you believe in a difference existing between disabled people and non-disabled people? What will you do differently today and tomorrow to reflect your belief structure?

I learned a long time ago everyone has a disability, a blind spot, or an issue they keep hidden from the world. Sometimes it is a missing eye, an arm, a leg, an embarrassing laugh, depression, anxiety, trauma, childhood abuse, adult abuse, the list is endless. Yet, some of those “blind spots” are more severe and become listed as “disabilities.” The government stepped in to classify people, and draw lines of segregation and separation, which did a lot of harm to people of all abilities. I met a man recently who lost several fingers and partially lost several other fingers. His lost and partial fingers never came up in conversation. His abilities as a typist were terrific, and his talents on several musical instruments were extraordinary, but his missing and partial fingers were non-topics! As a point of fact, I did not notice the fingers until I shook his hand in congratulations for his accomplishments.

Drawing lines, classifications, separations, and segregation, it never works. Until we can look past, work past, and choose to live past the disability, we will never be equally able, and everyone suffers. What keeps disabled people from being able; our choices. What keeps able people from working together; our choices. See the connection; how we choose is the single greatest determining factor in moving forward as an individual, a team, a group, and a company. We choose to either be abled or disabled. We choose to allow our comfort zone to define us or not to define us. We choose to work together first or separate each other first.

Often a person lacking an ability due to misfortune of some kind will develop and magnify other abilities, an often-overlooked advantage to their value because seeing past their loss has become a lost art of possibility and consideration. In other words, our humanity needs restoration. Those who do not have a fulness of ability know the realities of unreasonable and unfair judgment rather than the realities of potential and are thus prevented from entering the world of abilities and possibilities by the much too often impenetrable establishment of discrimination. We can lift people from where we are and change the paradigm of ability and advancement to a higher level of accomplishment and respect. We can do this! Do you believe?

How will we act tomorrow? A similar question was posed by Brian “The Brain” Johnson in the movie “The Breakfast Club,” and new attitudes, new thinking, and new potential were born. Are we willing to see past the outside wrapping, shun society’s labels, and choose a different path forward through action, learning, leadership, and healthy conflict?

Let’s discuss!

- Conflict is good, beneficial, and a tool that is useful for building people, teams, and businesses. Douglas Malloch wrote a timeless poem, “Good Timber,” which is the quintessential discussion on why and how conflict is good. Let us embrace conflict as the tool it is for improving people. A handout is available for further consideration on this topic and all bullets discussed, with reference materials for additional research on these topics if you desire.
- Leadership begins with followership; followership begins with being lifelong learners, learning requires opportunities to teach, teaching is a prerequisite to learning, and learning requires the ability to lead and apply. – These are merely starting points to understanding. They are facts.
  - 1. 1. Do we encourage delegation and learning through experience?
        
        Do we embrace failure as a tool for lifelong learning?
        
        Leadership is not a title; leadership is first an attitude, then an action, and finally a method of learning and teaching. How do we apply these truths in daily activities?
        
        Leadership as an attitude is witnessed in good followership, even when our followers practice loyal opposition; are we embracing the loyal opposition? Do we know how to recognize the loyal opposition?
  - Flexibility and agility require open minds. Open minds need varieties in opinions, politics, beliefs, religions, and so much more. Open minds begin with lifelong learning! Lifelong learning requires self-reflection. – Again, we find fundamental truths, simply explained and expounded. How are we embracing these truths in daily practice? What actions are we supporting in the workplace to showcase support to and openness to variety in thinking and commitment to lifelong learning?
    1. 1. What book did you just read?
        
        Did you share that book, recommending it to whom?
        
        Were you excited about the book?
        
        When was the last time you self-reflected?
  - Do you believe?
  - How will you act tomorrow?

Additional Questions, Comments, or Concerns, feel free to reach out to me via email or IM through LinkedIn. Thank you!

NO MORE BS: The Power and Blessing of Conflict

Douglas Malloch wrote a poem that has become famous. More to the point, the poem “Good Timber” declares a natural law, “Conflict is Good!”

Good Timber
by Douglas Malloch

The tree that never had to fight
For sun and sky and air and light,
But stood out in the open plain
And always got its share of rain,
Never became a forest king
But lived and died a scrubby thing.

The man who never had to toil
To gain and farm his patch of soil,
Who never had to win his share
Of sun and sky and light and air,
Never became a manly man
But lived and died as he began.

I learned to swim by being thrown into the deep end of a lake and told to get back to shore on my own. The conflict made me understand and learn how to coordinate movement, and I learned to swim. I learned how to fight by opening my big mouth and having someone bigger close my mouth for me. I learned how to ride a bike by falling off. As a process of learning and developing, conflict has been the driving factor in all of our lives. But, as soon as a person is elected to public office, they seem to lose their minds and think conflict is always bad, to be avoided, and scared of due to the perceived consequences.

Tools Conflict is a tool, and like all tools, when used appropriately, it can build, enhance, strengthen, and create. Whereas, if the tool is improperly used, destruction, damage, and chaos are spawned. Conflict happens; what a person chooses to do with that conflict and how that person considers conflicting occurrences is how the labels “good,” “bad,” “valuable,” “beneficial,” etc., are applied. McShane and Von Gilnow (2004, p. 390) postulated, “conflict as beneficial [when] intergroup conflict improves team dynamics, increase cohesiveness, and task orientation. … [C]onditions of moderate conflict, motivates team members to work more efficiently toward goals increasing productivity.” The sentiment regarding conflict as a tool and beneficial is echoed throughout the research of Jehn (1995). Jehn (1995) reflected that the groups researched labeled the conflict as beneficial, good, bad, etc. Based on the group’s dynamics and the conflicts faced and settled, the groups formed an integrated model for organizational conflict. Essentially, how the conflict is approached and used by the team members individually and collectively dictates how beneficial the conflict is for the team and the organization.

Rao (2017) built upon previous researchers’ shoulders, perceiving conflict being a tool, and provided vital strategies for leaders to employ if they choose to minimize conflict. Rao (2017) provided that conflict builds character, whereas crisis defines character” [p. 93]. Rao (2017) recognized that conflict labels are an individual choice. In organizational conflict, one team could label the conflict as useful and beneficial while another department could label that same conflict as damaging and horrible. When the conflict in an organization has disparate labels, understanding why conflict is disparately evaluated remains more important than changing the label.

moral-values Thompson (2008) raised significant points regarding conflict, beginning with a real-life example of how conflict spurred organizational change and growth for the H. J. Heinz Co. Thompson (2008) calls those who actively work to avoid conflict as those taking “trips to Abilene;” included in those making trips to Abilene are those who take conflict personally and choose to become offended, as well as those who choose to not see conflict as a method of ignoring conflict. Thomas (1992) captured again how individual choices about the valuation of conflict opens or closes the door to the productive use of conflict. Ignoring conflict, avoiding conflict, and other strategies of not facing conflict form the most dangerous people to be around, for when conflict grows beyond a point where it can no longer be ignored or avoided, that is the conflict that can destroy people, places, and things.

Thomas (1992) echoes Jehn (1995), Lencioni (2002), and Thompson (2008) in declaring the distinction between conflict as a process and the structure in which the conflict process occurred is critical to how beneficial the conflict will be for the team, business, or society. Consider for a moment, the structure in the organizational environment. Conflict is the mental thinking, adherence to operating procedures, and individuals working become the instigating factor, which is a threat to what is known or done at the current time. Hence, Thomas (1992) provided a keen insight into conflict as a tool, purposeful initiation of a process (conflict) to improve a structure (organizational environment).

When people recognize the power of conflict and purposefully employ conflict, everyone receives the potential to improve through conflict (Lencioni, 2002). Thus, conflict continues to be a tool, nothing more and nothing less. The disparities between organizational conflict labels are critical to understanding the chasm between teams evaluating conflict as the process and business structure. The gap in understanding conflict’s results can create inhibitions to future organizational conflict, create unneeded additional conflict processes, all while undermining the organizational structure.

Why does this matter?

The media keeps postulating that the slim margins between Republicans and Democrats in the US House of Representatives and Senate are bad, and chaos will reign in conflicting opinions. I’m afraid I have to disagree with the media and wanted a common understanding of conflict’s beneficial nature before expressing why conflict in the US House of Representatives and Senate is desirable. From the earliest days of the Continental Congress, America has been born from meeting a shared understanding born from two extreme positions. Early conflicts in American history led to the need for laws to stop dueling with guns and swords.

There are many valuable lessons to be learned from conflict critical to America’s future. For example, had America had more conflict in the US Congress (Senate and House), we would have a budget and less debt. Consider some of the detestable legislation pushed through at the end of 2020 and the 116^th Congressional session. With more conflicting ideas and opinions, building strong voices in dissent, those pieces of legislation would have been pushed onto a new Congress for remediation and reconciliation.

President Lincoln is known as a great leader of America in crisis, a reputation justly earned! Guess what, he had a very contentious Congress to face. Through the Congressional contention, conflict, and remediation and reconciliation processes, Congress had to learn to work together under the rule of law. As a point of interest, all the presidents honored on Mount Rushmore had crisis, contention, and Congressional conflict to overcome and achieve American progress. Why do we need more conflicting opinions, slimmer margins, and maybe a few more different and diverse political parties in America’s Congress, because they refuse to listen to the electorate!

I have seen Congressional bodies in several Democratic countries during my travels, and I keep watching how other countries’ Congressional bodies work and do not work. Frankly, I would not mind seeing a fistfight or two break out in the US Congress as a way to shatter the current paradigm and get the legislative bodies working as they should, moving between two extreme points to find the best solution for the people who hired them. People claim politics is a rough game; I say, bring on the conflict and make that job rougher in the hopes of improving performance!

References:
The references are included if you want to further research conflict as beneficial.

Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive Effects of Conflict: A Cognitive Perspective. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 4(1), 25-36.

Brazzel, M. (2003). Chapter XIII: Diversity conflict and diversity conflict management. In D. L. Plummer (Ed.), Handbook of diversity management: Beyond awareness to competency based learning (pp. 363-406). Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.

Du, F., Erkens, D. H., & Xu, K. (2018). How trust in subordinates affects service quality: Evidence from a large property management firm. Business.Illinois.edu. Retrieved from https://business.illinois.edu/accountancy/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2018/03/Managerial-Symposium-2018-Session-IV-Du-Erkens-and-Xu.pdf

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multi-method exanimation of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons.

Lumineau, F., Eckerd, S., & Handley, S. (2015). Inter-organizational conflicts. Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation, 1(1), 42-64. doi:10.1177/2055563614568493

McShane, S. L., & Von Gilnow, M. A. (2004). Organizational Behavior, Third Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Moeller, C., & Kwantes, C. T. (2015). Too Much of a Good Thing? Emotional Intelligence and Interpersonal Conflict Behaviors. Journal of Social Psychology, 155(4), 314-324. doi:10.1080/00224545.2015.1007029

Rao, M. (2017). Tools and techniques to resolve organizational conflicts amicably. Industrial and Commercial Training, 49(2), 93-97. doi:10.1108/ict-05-2016-0030

Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265-274.

Thompson, L. L. (2008). Chapter 8: Conflict in teams – Leveraging differences to create opportunity. In Making the team: A guide for managers (3rd ed., pp. 201-220). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

© Copyright 2021 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the images.
All rights reserved. For copies, reprints, or sharing, please contact through LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/davesalisbury/

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this: