Visionary Leaders Stay out of the Fray

Reinventing Sport Leadership - Part 14 of 16

Photo credit - Unsplash

“How damaging is a habit that permits fault finding, character assassination, and the sharing of malicious rumours! Gossip and caustic comments often create chains of contention” (Marvin J. Ashton)

In my various leadership roles, I find myself having to take the higher moral ground when discussion heats up and not to get immersed in a trivial, self-serving, and divisive argument. So much time to be productive gets wasted when a leader does not sense the worthlessness of fault finding, character assassination, gossip, spreading of malicious rumours, and caustic comments instead of doing and engaging in meaningful work. I am not suggesting that the politics of the workplace, especially negative conduct, does not exist in an organisation. After all, we are all human beings. There is always someone or some people who always see the worst in most situations.

I was in such a meeting recently where there were two camps against each other. There has been a lot of accusations and statements of distrust between the two camps for more than a year, and no matter how much I tried to resolve the differences, there was always someone coming up with something negative against the other. Now on this specific day in a meeting conducted virtually, I sensed the proceedings diverging towards recriminations about what this person did, and that person didn’t do. The uniqueness of the situation was that the antagonistic relationship among the senior people in the organisation had a historical basis that I knew about. Rather than allowing the two camps to continue accusing each other of wrongs and work not done, I took a position that expressed those facts that indeed things have not always gone the way everyone wanted them to go for too long. Despite my approach to let the two camps resolve their differences without my direct involvement, their lack of unity and cohesion was starting to weigh heavily on the organisation. I immediately pointed out everyone knew what has been happening; that is, why the differences they have had not been resolved up to this point in time. I had with me lists of complaints and responses made on various issues that everyone was aware of. With this fact stated and acknowledged, I ruled that it was time to be brave and establish firm and binding expectations of each camp guided by the need to ensure that the organisation performed optimally. I emphasised the need for professionalism, respect, integrity, and the establishment of clear terms of engagement between the two camps. The truth of the matter was that time was being wasted on the same disagreements over and over again without each camp willing to really listen and converge towards pursuing a common purpose of serving the organisation’s clients effectively. The root of the problem being poor communication and lack of proper feedback on questions raised and actions concluded when promises were made by and to each camp.

What happened thereafter was that both camps were disarmed from throwing the well prepared barbs of thorns they had prepared for each other. Suddenly the tension evaporated because the goal to achieve was clear, which was that roles and responsibilities need to be clarified with everyone being held accountable for their part of what they were required to contribute to making the organisation sustainable. The meeting ended with a commitment to work together more cohesively, to have a quick turnaround when there are queries, to hold regular meetings, for each person to carry out their roles and responsibilities to the best of their abilities, each person to be supported by the systems and processes of the organisation effectively, and for speaking behind the back of others to stop. So, instead of dwelling in the past and its recriminations, the meeting set clear expectations. As a leader, I was proud that, together with all the participants who arrived wanting to defend their territories, the meeting did not get bogged down in the “he said” and “she said” scenario.

The incident described above is a clear example of leaders staying out of the fray. I am reminded of Mark Twain’s quote that “never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” The language Twain uses is quite harsh, however, it expresses quite clearly what happens when leaders, or anyone else for that matter, stay in the fray. In using Twain’s words, I am not implying that my colleagues are stupid – I am merely indicating that leaders who are sensitive and able to read situations, avoid situations in which time can be wasted, and very little achieved if they do not stay focussed on the critical business to make their organisations achieve its vision, mission, and goals. In other words, I believe that if one is a smart leader with peripheral vision, one will stay out of the fray.

Let us define what it means to stay out of the fray. Vocabulary.com defines the word fray as being about friction such as a frayed rope that has been rubbed so much that its fibers are wearing away, and experienced by people involved in a noisy fight. The word “fray” conjures mental images of a battle, war, fighting, or chaos. Many of us who work in organisations, be they private or public, will have experienced the hopelessness of running these institutions in a culture of arguments and counter arguments that lead nowhere. I remember my years leading one organisation in which every meeting, be it at the executive, council, or general meeting levels, it was always a fray, a battle, or chaos. It became very difficult for one to reason with anyone because some of the people were always regarded as sell-outs by virtue of the institutions in which they were employed. There were simply many people who thrived on starting fights and battles, and creating chaos that they argued was because they politically more aware, and therefore representing the needs of some oppressed subset of our organisation. This argument was made without any attempt to verify the facts and reasons why some good leaders decided to serve in the organisation. In this situation, I rolled with the punches in meetings but ensured that I used my professionalism, knowledge, experience, and skills to advance the programmes of the organisations outside of meetings. And yes, there were repercussions at the next meeting when reports were presented of the work done by certain people who preferred to asked why they were not consulted. The good work done was completely ignored even though everything was done within the constraints of policies and regulations. One Christine Wasnie states that a powerful position of staying out of the fray is a stance best described by the statement “call me when you are willing to create a positive solution” (The Singing Soul, https://dwasnie.wordpress.com/2017/09/22/stay-out-of-the-fray/).

Now, how does a wise leader stay out of the fray? I have some ideas of how I have managed to stay out of the fray in many instances in which utterances and meetings were on verge of getting out of control, or where colleagues were inclined to create chaos instead of seeking solutions. Here are some examples:

· Holding your tongue and taking a deep breath, walking away, and then carefully consider it is worth the fight. When you have calmed down, consider the next positive step to take, either to engage the other person, follow other procedures of dealing with such issues, or simply moving on. Josh Billings stated that “the best time for you to hold your tongue is the time you feel you must say something or bust.”

· Listening attentively. Roy T. Bennett (The Light in the Heart) puts it so relevantly when he states that we must “listen with curiosity. Speak with honesty. Act with integrity. The greatest problem with communication is we do not listen to understand. We listen to reply. When we listen with curiosity, we do not listen with the intent to reply. We listen for what’s behind the words.” I could not find any better words than this quotation to describe what listening attentively means.

· Focussing on facts and principles. A fact is something that is known and proven. It is not hearsay and is backed by being verifiable. Principles are fundamental truths or propositions that serve as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or a chain of reasoning. In organisations, principles could be a list of values identified and set by a group of people and used in the establishment of the culture of the organisation.

· Deal directly with the party/person creating the chaos or misrepresenting issues or your viewpoints. A meeting with the person to gain a better understanding of the issues is one of the best options to take to stay out of the fray.

· Stay clear of the rumour mill in which co-workers gossip about colleagues, complain about their work ethic, and so on. By staying clear of the rumour mill, the leader will avoid taking sides and can be able to mediate as and when necessary.

· Not allowing people to cross the line. Even though you stay clear of the rumour mills, and hold your tongue, it does not mean you can allow people to cross the line professionally. A simple “I do not like what you are implying or saying,” “I do not want this conversation to continue,” or “I do not have time for this conversation now,” are some of the ways of preventing people from crossing the line.

· Being proficient in your work and doing your work anyway. A leader cannot hesitate to do his/her work because of the rumour mill or chaos that is being generated by people in the organisation. A leader, as I have experienced some years ago leading to sport organisation, can get attached for a variety of reasons. He/she can be marginalised and undermined, also for a variety of reasons. He/she can be maligned for demanding higher performance standards within the organisation. He/she can also be maligned for his/her professionalism, knowledge, skills, and experience. These issues are the reasons why one is qualified to be a leader of others, teams, and organisations. They equip the leader so that he/she can continue doing the work anyway for as long as they lead the organisation.

· The ability to maintain perspective amid chaos is critical for leaders to succeed. Maintaining perspective requires an ability to understand detail as well as seeing the whole picture. In one organisation I worked in, we called this “working in the business” as well as “working on the business.” These perspectives allow a leader to see what is going on in the organisation, and then to respond in unscripted ways as events unfold instantaneously.

In conclusion, the words of Victoria Erickson should resonate with the actions and intentions of a visionary leader striving to stay out of the fray:

“Dwelling on the negative merely lowers your vibration and creates sickness in the mind and body. Use your internal strength and willpower to rise about the thoughts pulling you down and watch your world rise alongside you, continuing to meet you exactly where you are.”