Leaders and the "Win-Win" Game

Thomas Kilman Conflict Resolution instrument here provides five approaches to conflict resolution depending on the degree of cooperativeness and assertiveness of the conflicting parties.

I viewed the efforts made by UMNO top leadership on the impending transition of power as a case of: "tarik rambut dalam tepung: tepung jangan berserak, rambut jangan terputus" . Probably this is the Malay equivalent of Thomas Kilman's collaborative approach. But see also how the Malay proverb had placed emphasis on the importance of relationship even in a conflict situation. This is the so-called "soft on the people but hard on the issue" technique.

Many in the party may have felt a bit relieved on learning that the incumbent is ready to shorten the power transition period.

Kudos for having learnt, understood and practiced Thomas Kilman's conflict resolution grid and also lived the said Malay proverb, to some extend. But it sounds more like a compromise (you lose some - I lose some) rather than a win-win resolve.

Malaysian Insider's report here, the Malaysiakini's report here and the Star Online report here, on the other hand reminded me of an episode in the late Tan Sri P. Ramlee's Nujum Pak Belalang wherein 'Nyawa' and 'Badan' were trying to find ways for a win-win resolve over the looted treasure. I smiled as I recalled the glimpses of "ini kepala bapak kau & ini kepala bapak aku" technique we resorted to every time my friends and I had quarrels. That was many years ago when we were naive little kampung kids.

While I was pondering over the subtle messages written in-between-the-lines in the above-mentioned reports, the Nujum Pak Belalang video clip, the Malay peribahasa and the reminiscence on the children's games we played, what came vividly into my mind were: whose priority shall leaders place first? Whose problems shall leaders resolve first, whose interest shall leaders take care first - self, followers or the organisation/the country?

If Abraham Lincoln's (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865), Gettysburg address: "Government of the people by the people and for the people" could probably throw leaders in UMNO some light on the above issue, certainly this is another lesson learned by leaders/ managers in the business sector in deciding their priorities in a conflict situation.

Difficult People and Self-Esteem

More often than not, leaders tend to question why do difficult co-workers behave 'difficult'.

In a cycle of conflict, one is perceived as trying to change the other. The harder the attempt, the harder the resistance a change agent will experience.

Many leaders believe that co-workers resist change because they are living in a comfort zone, because they do not see the real need for change, because of the sour relationships co-workers had with the change agent. Little did leaders realised that co-workrs resist change not because of change per se but because of the uncertainties brought along by the change. These uncertainties create fear. Co-workers resist change because they are fearful of losing their basic needs, losing their security needs, their social needs they are currently enjoying, and more importantly they fear of losing their self-esteem and self actualisation. In other words, difficult people, very often have a low self esteem.

When change is inevitable, as a result of forces from within and outside, those resisting change suffer the 'denial syndrome'. They will always point the fingers at others for causing the problems except themselves. The irony is, while one finger points at others, four are pointing at themselves.

The current political turbulence within the ruling coalition especially after the March 8 GE and the 26 August PP by-election manifests this denial syndrome. When the pressures from outside are mounting, only then will leaders restrategise. Whether they are restrategising counter attacks or reforms is something that many people are anxiously waiting to know. The uncertainties has since translated into unfavourable social, economic and financial implications.

Likewise, similar situations could also happened in corporate organisations. In the process, a lot of time, money and energy are wasted. Many people were demoralised, some burnt-out and others find alternative solutions.

Difficult People & The Cycle of Conflict

Recently, in spite of Ramadan, I have the opportunity of facilitating a 2-day session on management skills. The programme was attended by managers and senior managers from the manufacturing industry. Several topics encompassing the conceptual, technical and human skills were covered. Yet, most critiques from participants were on conflict, dealing with difficult people and managing change - issues relating to human skills.

One participants remarked that the most important asset of an organisation - 'the people - is the most difficult to manage'.

Sometimes we find ourselves losing our heads when dealing with difficult people. We wonder how a simple disagreement can turn into a conflict.

So, on one side we have the nice people like us (the participants and me) and the difficult people on the other side (like the difficult co-workers).

I started by requesting the participants for words used to describe difficult people. As expected, everyone started to throw in negatives. Asking them to think like nice people, I went on to request them for words that described their reactions towards the 'difficult people'. Then I had asked them to analyse both the lists. They laughed. I was relieved when I learned that the they were indeed laughing at themselves. Little did they realised that, before this, they were behaving exactly in the same manner as the 'difficult people' when dealing with them.

How can we resolve the conflict or handle difficult people when we are behaving like them? Two negatives do not make a positive. It's a stalemate.How is this explained?

I have asked them to work in pair. One, A and the other, B. A holds his/her fist tight and B using his/ her creativity will try to open the fist. The 'lesson of the fist' manifests that the harder the attempt to open the fist, the more it motivates the difficult person to resist even harder. This creates the cycle of conflict. The cycle of conflict works in a vicious cycle.

Issues implicating Ahmad Ismail from Bukit Bendera; Penang recently, the reactions and exchanges of words from political and ethnic leaders from within and outside the ruling coalition, on the issues; Ahmad's refusal to apologise and the tearing away of Penang BN Chairperson and Former Penang CM's photograph; are classic illustrations on the cycle of conflict.

Positioned Leader Versus True Leader

Just before the Permatang Pauh by-election on the 26 August 2008, Malaysians witnessed two main opposing coalitions resorted to slinging mud and throwing rocks at each other. Each side bragged on their chances of winning the by-election. They deemed to have worked for a common cause. That's quite understandable. The by-election result literally do not change the distribution of seats. The ruling coalition still controls the majority.

I expected some signs of the dusts resulting from mud-slinging and stone-throwing to start settling down.

While much have been said and written on this issue, this observation will not add to the already lengthy list of political analyses. I choose to differ by looking at the issue from the leadership perspetive.

Yes, the dust has settled down, but in Pakatan Rakyat. They are already focusing on the next course of actions. The opposite is true in the ruling coalition. The dust has not settled down since the first election tsunami. In fact the dust is thickening after 26 August as they found a new ground for mud-slinging and stone-throwing. Now, within the coalition. Whether the dust will settled down soon is left much to be desired.

The above scenario provides us the relationships between positioned leader and true leader. It suggests the relationships between acquiring a position and the ability to control. There appears to be no guarantee that one will be able to lead and control even if he is positioned. Popularity positioned a leader, but true leadership steers and controls the entire team and its performance. True leadership is about influencing people/ followers. It is built around trust bound by personal attributes, competency and connection. Absence of true leadership can be chaotic and the result, fatal.

The current scenario is indeed annoying for everyone is hopeful for the dusts to settle down. But it takes a real leader ( and his power of buying-in) to settle the dusts (read resolve the problems)and clear the clouds (read set the vision).

When the dusts has settled and the clouds cleared only then could we see people lining up behind the leader.He is the real leader. And, everyone of us is waiting eagerly to see who he is...