We’ve all seen it in some form or another on our projects and in the work place. The persons in charge (or with the most influence) who wish for popularity surround themselves with an entourage of kowtowing followers. However, when confronted by contrary views or situations that impact their ego, their decisiveness is challenged; after all the challengers may be correct and the ebb of popularity may be flowing. The ‘yes men’ who support the boss (‘cos the boss is always right) will defend any pre-existing popular position against any “nay-sayer” who has dared to challenge the status quo. Everybody isn’t going with the flow and those who are just along for the ride will experience the friction from the posturing and positioning of opposing parties.
Friction causes confusion and indecision and without decisions there will be conflict or stagnation. Stagnation itself leads to frustration and acts as a catalyst for conflict. But what can be done as conflict looms on the horizon; it’s a choice between rational management or letting the opponents fight it out; just like gladiators with the emperor and crowd deciding as to the fate of any loser and acclaim the victor.
Conflict Management
Conflict can be managed through a spectrum of variably effective methods. At the ineffective end of the spectrum there is withdrawing and avoidance. Then, with increasing effectiveness there is smoothing through to compromising and collaboration, and then forcing. However, the most effective method of conflict management is advocated as confronting the issues directly.
However, there are can be two approaches to such ‘confronting’. The first is the rational approach through problem solving. The affected parties work through their disagreement, find areas of mutual commonality and understanding which, through negotiation and some mediation, can then rectify the misunderstanding(s) that is at the heart of any conflict. This, inevitably, takes time and for some, their human frailties of pride and ego can well be damaged. Grudges can be borne for a long time and have a habit of resurrecting themselves, no matter what the agreement.
The second approach to conflict management is a more ‘direct’ and, although irrational, it makes for a definite winner with witnesses to prove it. Let those with differing opinions fight it out in the arena! What better way of resolving any situation than confronting it head on and seeing who has most courage in their convictions, or the most stamina, or the most belligerent attitude, or who can influence the most people! Just like politics and politicians; don’t let reason and logic get in the way of a good fight.
Emperors, Gladiators and Spectators
In Roman times the Emperor Caligula declared 100 days of feast and festivity in efforts to remain popular with both the masses and the gods; and this probably included gladiatorial combat. He showed everybody who was ‘boss’ with plenty of pomp and ceremony as he gave a thumbs-up or thumbs-down as to the fate of any defeated party while still, he believed, retaining his popularity.
Just as in Roman times head-on confrontation is best done in front of a crowd of spectators. Defeat with its incumbent humiliation, and victory with its associated hedonism may then be witnessed by all. The person in charge can be seen as being either merciful or omnipotent while preserving their popularity and also implicating their supporters and spectators alike in any barbarism; after all, gladiators are merely sport and expendable.
Spectators witness the rights and wrongs that are bludgeoned out between the gladiators through the modern day arenas of a company’s intranet, email, meetings, and even social media. Personal and professional reputations are attacked and the risk of defeat and humiliation may well deter those who, for all the right reasons, would dare rock the boat of complacency while the gladiatorial manager looks on to see which way the boat is being rocked.
Conclusion
Gladiatorial combat may be a thing of the past but conflict still prevails in all walks of life. When there is indecision and the status quo of popularity and going with the flow is challenged the reasoned approach to resolving conflict is forgotten or, rather, ignored.
Resolving conflict through reason is best. However for any despotic ’emperor’ who would keep the ‘trouble makers’ from rocking their boat this is best achieved through the auspices of public combat, and the threat of humiliation, or just plain fear of change.
Gladiatorial managers suppress any would be trouble makers who challenge their status quo or popularity; even if it is for the better. These managers then prove their power through threat and intellectual abuse rather than earned respect. Even the spectators who bear witness to the combat are culpable in any outcome and can be manipulated later by virtue of not saying ‘nay’.
Ancient gladiators declared ‘we who are about to die salute you‘ out of respect. However, for any would-be future combatants (or spectators) exposed to gladiatorial management it’s possibly best to ask, ‘do we who may have to stay respect you’. It’s then a choice of accepting the outcome and being complicit in the ritual defeat of somebody through humiliation or some party through unethical behaviour, or taking the moral high ground and choosing to just ‘go’; it’s a question of morality.
Bio:
UK Chartered Engineer & Chartered Geologist with over thirty-five years’ international experience in multicultural environments on large multidisciplinary infrastructure projects including rail, metro, hydro, airports, tunnels, roads and bridges. Skills include project management, contract administration & procurement, and design & construction management skills as Client, Consultant, and Contractor.