Blogs & Articles

LATEST POSTSPODCAST
News

How to Get to Agreement when you Disagree

Disagreement Wonderland Is it simply my imagination or are events even more heavily shaded with disagreement than usual? The post-election fall-out is an obvious starting point. The electorate has spoken, yet those elected cannot agree on who should govern us. The various political entities are frantically speed-dating in a snug just beyond public view in an effort to stitch together a plausible patchwork in sufficient quantity for government – with those whom they sometimes fundamentally disagree. In Britain, disagreement is in full swing on whether they should opt in or out of Europe. A chorus of disagreement is echoing all around Europe concerning the migrant crisis. Whilst in America the republican nomination candidates can’t agree on practically anything. Including hand size. Meanwhile closer to home the Workplace Relations Commission is earning its corn at present hosting disputes amongst Luas workers and management whilst simultaneously providing the same forum for resolution at Cadbury’s. Disagreement is not simply confined to politics or commerce as Shane Lowry found himself in a face-to-face wrangle with the PGA over his choice of words off the tee during the Honda Classic at Palm Beach Gardens. 200 Millenia and we still haven’t figured it out You would imagine that by now, after just the 200,000 years of human existence, we might have figured out how to resolve our differences. It’s not as if we lack the opportunity to practice. Most managers spend 80% or more of their time daily interacting with people to get the job done (and if they don’t they’re probably not managing very well). Within that time, a significant portion of the effort is spent getting to an agreement of one kind or another – either reaching a decision or solving a problem. That’s actually what managers get paid to do. However, as one manager admitted to me recently: "This job would be easy - if it weren’t for the damned people!" Employee & Employer: The perfect match To advance in their careers people spend hugely on education and qualifications. Corporations, meanwhile, fall over themselves to attract the best and the brightest. After the perfect match is made, companies then invest heavily in guess what? Technology, processes, systems and structures - all done in the name of increasing productivity in a world where (according to a 2013 Harvard survey) smartphone-connected employees are now routinely working 72 hour weeks (13.5 hours on weekdays and 5 hours on weekends). Yet nowhere can I find any data on how much is being invested to equip people to find agreement where there is none. Without which of course all the state-of-the-art technology, systems and processes in the world simply falls over. The look says it all - see The 5 Deadly Sins below Cultural Blind-spot It is assumed that if a person has a high IQ, then it follows they will automatically have the smarts to manage the people side of productivity. Most, in truth, really struggle and there is plenty of research out there to suggest that…
FlowIrelandAdmin
18th November 2016
News

RTE Guest Post: GE16: Are leaders’ debates really debates at all?

It was Pat Leahy from the Sunday Business Post who inadvertently prompted the reflection. In the RTÉ Spin Room programme that followed the University of Limerick leaders’ debate, the panellist’s opening remark began "You’ve still got to pick out a winner…" Really? The very assertion begs the question: what are the leaders’ debates for and what is their purpose? Is it simply (as Pat would imply) a beauty pageant where there is a winner and losers? I’ve tried the question amongst colleagues and associates over the last fortnight and elicited almost as many variations as I did responses. So then, is it true the topic that has generated most noise on the airwaves lately has no clear or common purpose? To those involved, however, there is clarity. For each political party the object is clearly to enhance its chance of winning in the election. For the broadcaster, its hope is to boost audience ratings. Suddenly we are faced with conflicting wants we now need to reconcile. Cue the format: let’s have a debate! That way political leaders can attempt to bolster their campaign and at the same time it may yield up some entertainment in the process. Yet the very title is misleading. When I punch the word “debate” into my iphone dictionary app I get the definition: 1. Discussion involving opposing points; 2. Deliberation; 3. Consideration; Obsolete: fight or quarrel. Curious then how the element that is now obsolete about debate is the very thing that characterised the pedigree of all three TV editions of the leaders’ “debate”. Indeed if we had a euro for every time the host had to intervene to prevent leaders shouting over, interrupting, or directly avoiding the question we would be half-way towards repaying the national debt. At many points the whole affair resembled your worst Christmas family nightmare. It is the breakdown of order amongst our most senior politicians that veers towards entertainment. It reminded me at times of the once famous Frankie Goes to Hollywood Two Tribes video that pitted Reagan against Gorbachev in a sand-wrestling pit. Little wonder then that Simon Cowell threw his hat in the ring in Britain last year with an offer to produce the next round of party leaders’ TV debates saying “I would love to do that. I’d do it in a heartbeat. 100% I’d have walk-ons, music, fire…and a trap door if people didn’t like what they said. And I’d definitely have a clapometer.” On the subject of the clapometer, at one particularly anarchic nadir Claire Byrne threw her hands (literally) in the air and chided the contestants (er, leaders) “All we’re hearing now is nothing”, which drew the loudest audience applause of the night. The whole affair was very symptomatic of what routinely happens in business meetings. Smart, often senior people coming together frequently without a clear or common understanding of why they are there. Some attempting to monopolise airtime with their own agenda whilst neither listening nor answering the question they were asked;…
FlowIrelandAdmin
18th November 2016