Conflicting agendas are opposing forces, and an experienced commander or leader realizes that these conflicts (whether they are hidden agendas or adamantly-stated contentions) will create a situation of encumbered ability [in the best of cases] and of complete immobility [in the worst case].
A leader bases his or her campaign or drive on finding areas of commonality, where agendas amongst all participants intersect significantly enough that every participant is more heavily invested in the interests which unite them to the group’s stated purpose or mission than the differences which separate them. If these differences are too great, or if these differences prove to be in direct opposition or conflict, the team effort will invariably fail, and the mission will not be accomplished.
A leader or commander has an obligation at the outset of a mission to determine: whether or not there are competing or conflicting agendas or objectives, to identify them, to isolate each one (and determine the potential damage which it may do) and to state his or her findings openly and candidly, in order to give the party or parties at conflict the opportunity to either acquiesce or to depart the team.
Barring either of these possibilities, the leader has three possible means of addressing the situation prior to proceeding with the campaign objective.
1) To persuade the recalcitrant party through intelligent argument and negotiation;
2) To remove the recalcitrant party;
3) To abort the mission.
Most leaders do not have the luxury of the third option, and in practice, the second option is generally prevalent.
To cite a practical example from the landscape of business:
Say that you have an acquaintance (a professional of some sort) who has a client, and your acquaintance refers this client to you. At the outset, your acquaintance feels that he is serving his client through the ‘innocent’ referral, and your company is happy to have the opportunity to serve a new customer.
If that customer begins making demands upon your company which would cause you to either 1) deviate from your chartered objectives, or 2) lose money in the process of appeasing his or her wants and needs, you will be forced to decline the engagement, since your first allegiance must be to your company and its stakeholders.
However, your acquaintance may have a greater interest in keeping his or her client satisfied regardless of the consequences to your company. He or she may try to persuade you to take a loss, compromise your objectives or think of his or her political, social or career interests as more important than your company’s needs. He or she is actually demanding that you make a sacrifice, at your expense, for his or her benefit.
In this situation, the only course to follow is one where you explain to both the referred customer, and to the referring professional that the your company is unwilling to take on the customer’s prospective business because it is either not in conformity with your business model (or mission), or because it would cause your company to incur a loss which would be damaging to you, your company and your company’s stakeholders. And then you must peaceably part ways.
---------------
A commander understands that the successful achievement of a goal or profitability is more important than the ballast and burden imposed by conflicting agendas and opposing forces. A commander also understands that conflicts are issues which must be expediently identified, addressed and resolved. The longer the time to resolution, the more damage incurred.
In order to accomplish anything, all agendas of all parties must be in alignment. Anything else results in either chaos or immobility, neither of which is tolerable in prosecuting a campaign or in running a profitable business.
Douglas E. Castle for The Taking Command Blog, The Internationalist Page Blog and The Braintenance Blog.
Some tags, keywords, search terms, research items, categories and labels for your further reference include:
conflict resolution, hidden agenda, conflicting agendas, team leadership, The Taking Command Blog, negotiation, achieving objectives, priorities, business, decision making, sacrifices, compromises, immobility, Blogs By Douglas E. Castle, leadership, hard choices, taking rapid action, politics in business, referrals, relationships, networking, cutting your losses.
As an end note, and generally speaking the person who asks you to make a sacrifice so that he or she may reap a benefit is not truly your ally. -DC
No comments:
Post a Comment