Editor’s Note: We welcome our newest author to Law Officer. Mark will begin by authoring a series of articles on Leadership.
When I reflect on conflict, an article I once read written by James A. Wilson comes to mind. The article, “The Necessity of Driving to Abilene,” is about a family who takes a long trip to a cafeteria in Abilene, Texas, about one hundred-plus miles from their home. The family knows that the food is average and the drive is boring; however, not one family member voiced their opposition about going. In this article Wilson explores the paradox of failing to state a position as an individual group-member while engaging in a discussion. More specifically Wilson states; “…the Abilene Paradox [is] an inability to manage agreement.” Essentially it comes down to having a trusting debate among a team. Exposure to the paradox occurs when a group fails to express their true feelings about a course of action; in this case a long, mostly undesirable ride together to a mediocre cafeteria in Abilene.
In law enforcement trust is everything; however, on an individual level trust may be fleeting. I ask how can this be? Trust, resides in the paramilitary structure of most LEO organizations. Many of us are familiar with the leadership philosophy of surrounding yourself with people who can best advise decision making. For the most part I feel certain that this philosophy is accurate; however, throughout the seventeen-plus years as a leader in law enforcement I have often heard the utterance; “…he’s the boss; he gets what he wants.” Often times responses of this nature tend to replace the real duty for one to advise in contrast to the “boss’s position.” Have you ever found yourself in a situation to do something for the sake of the boss’s desire? To avoid doing something for the boss’s sake it is imperative to grasp the difference between principled and personal conflict. But we ask how?
Personal conflict is one of those things when seen or heard can be easily recognized. The year 2016 was filled with personal conflict. Simply being alive last year meant one experienced personal conflict which often tends to break down an essential ingredient of a functional team; that ingredient is trust! What I am suggesting is a healthy team building element known as principled conflict. It is essential to have a tough talk or debate among your team even if saying what one truly feels may differ from that of the team. Being honest with one’s self is essential for the sake of the team’s final decision. Each team member is a stakeholder which requires that individuals position to be sought out and desirable as a member of that team. Unfortunately, principled conflict is not always a popular element ingredient and can lead to the singular element of fear. In order to avoid fear teams should provide equitable footing at any meeting when open discussion is requested. By doing so fear of reprisal for differing points of view can often times be avoided. Continually an absence of fear may defray trust issues among a team. There are always better times and places to have debates where law enforcement is concerned. It is always essential to know the right time to speak up.
It is a well-known fact in law enforcement that not all discussions are created equally. The time for principled debate during an active-shooter situation is unadvisable; however, in pre-planning, policy development and operational discussions, initiating debate often may lead to a positive outcome. Listed are instances when listening to your instincts can guide principled conflict:
- The outcome of the initial decision moves through a group with near unanimous acceptance and/or with little or no contrast in position.
- Discussions with team members prior to a meeting contrast with the outcome with little to no debate.
- The “vibe” of the group takes on the feeling of disagreement without debating alternatives.
- The meetings are short and void of questions or comments.
- The structure of the meeting does not allow for opposing viewpoints.
- The absence of diversity in policy making.
Therefore, it is my advice to address the current state of group dynamics within your team. Prior to your next meeting discuss the desire for open principled discussions with your chief executive or ranking superior; this is known as getting “buy-in” from agency stakeholders. Do know that often times groups are simply unaware of the fact that they “have taken a trip to Abilene.” It is incumbent upon us as leaders to recognize breakdowns in trust. Always speak up for the betterment of the organization and the public we serve.