Are you creating rules to avoid discomfort?
Designing rules like “Here’s how we handle this situation” or “That’s not how we do things here” can be an efficient way to get things done within an organization. But it can also be a way to avoid talking about difficult and controversial topics that bring up fear and anxiety. When there are differing perspectives and interests in play, a rule can create tension that stays unresolved until those interests are addressed directly.
Talking about difficult topics is uncomfortable and sometimes distressing, so we avoid it or try to short-circuit the discussion by creating rules to settle the issue. But if we haven’t fully included all stakeholders and perspectives in the discussion so that everyone feels heard, we’ve avoided the issue and created even more tension because those who were excluded will create a ruckus until their concerns are addressed.
It feels faster to make a decision and move on, but if you haven’t addressed those tensions, you may be relying on #power and authority to enforce compliance. The people affected are not actually committed to the decision, and so you are getting a fraction of their full capacity.
The alternative is to include all those perspectives, and make a decision that addresses those concerns and shares the tradeoffs being made. It feels slower to do that work up front, but it will lead to greater alignment, increased trust, and faster execution because everybody believes in the decision. Many people in positions of authority don’t know how to handle feeling discomfort in those conversations though, so they fall back to making the decision quickly based on their interests, and using their punitive power to enforce the decision.
What kind of leader do you want to be? What capacities would you need to build in yourself to handle the uncomfortable work of #alignment?
#youhaveachoice