Collective inspiration, not adversarial interaction – why we need rules of engagement
As the COVID crisis continues to play a significant role in our lives, we are still feeling stressed. How can we ensure that, if tensions arise, they don’t jeopardise relationships in our community and threaten collective solutions to shared problems?
Universities play an enormously important role in the world. They are powerful, networked institutions that can truly solve global challenges. We can use our research and innovation to benefit the entire human population, and we can train the next generation of global citizens to make a difference with research-led, globally applicable answers to the myriad issues that cause such large-scale suffering.
“We can best deal with our stresses and fears if we do so collectively, and if we all treat each other with empathy, dignity and respect.”
The only way for universities to make that important contribution is to be strategic, evidence-based and, most importantly, collaborative. We need to work together as if our lives depend on it – because they do. We need to do that in global networks between universities, and with NGOs, governments, policy makers and business leaders. And, of course, also internally. Only as a strong community of staff and students, with a common mission and purpose, can we play that much-needed role.
We are all worn down from the workload caused by the crisis, and on top of that we are worried about our future in a whole range of ways. I want to prevent those emotions from driving us apart and, rather, use our individual and collective hardship to inspire a sense of shared purpose. We can best deal with our stresses and fears if we do so collectively, and if we all treat each other with empathy, dignity and respect. In a previous blog about conflict, I talked about the importance of not lashing out or zoning out in times of tension, of maintaining a way to preserve the connection.
Academics, in particular, can be passionate and vocal. They are societally engaged and willing to work hard for what they believe in (as are those who work with them, of course). These are brilliant traits that make our institutions the great places they are. And while the overwhelming majority of the time I see these traits applied in positive ways, including during engaging and respectful meetings at my current university, throughout my career at a wide range of institutions I have too frequently seen behaviour that acts as a barrier to collaboration. In part I think this stems from a false belief that internal colleagues or structures are often the most significant obstacles to success.
“I know we can be a better functioning, happier community if we can relate to each other in an open, trusting way.”
When we see things in this way we can get ourselves into trouble. If “the enemy” is within, working together becomes difficult, even undesirable. If, on top of that, we express ourselves in a highly adversarial way and, as a result, violate the dignity of those colleagues we perceive to be “in the way”, we are collectively entering dangerous territory, whether the mode is social media, written communications or verbal comments. People will feel personally threatened. Tensions can become destabilising.
I want to be open and communicative as a university leader. I want to listen – especially to groups in our community whose voices are not easily heard. I want to be transparent in my goals, whether financial, strategic, or both. I want to keep having meetings where I open myself up to comments and constructive criticism from anyone who is willing to engage. And I would like for that mode of communicating to become mainstream for all the leaders in my university. I know we can be a better functioning, happier community if we can relate to each other in an open, trusting way, and I also know I can be a better leader if I communicate transparently and frequently.
“Expressions of anger lead to a lack of trust and a lack of safety, and prevent us from being open to each other’s point of view.”
But we do need clear rules of engagement to make this way of relating effective in bringing us together as university communities. I and other colleagues in leadership sometimes experience important meetings and interactions where a small number of dominant voices engage in a way that can easily come across as intimidating and adversarial. That can have an effect on the person speaking or leading the conversation but, perhaps more importantly, if it happens in open meetings and public communications, quieter or less senior colleagues will no longer easily speak up. The atmosphere quickly becomes one of “us” versus “them”, or “the management” versus “the rest”, and a sense of common purpose and goals quickly disappears. Another problem with expressions of anger is that they easily lead to lack of trust and lack of safety, and prevent us from being open to each other’s point of view. The result is a diminished ability to collaborate and be the great university community we can be.
We can be better. We can use our ability to think critically and express ourselves eloquently, for the common good. We can be kind and respectful when we express beliefs that might be firmly held, different or even challenging. Perhaps we need to all think more strategically before we engage passionately in meetings and debates. What is the middle to long term agenda for our entire group? What are our personal goals? Certainly they should be higher-order, and not just the potential satisfaction of a good fight. Even if that could be fun for some, the short term pleasure comes at the expense of many long term goals that together we hold dear. For me personally, the fact that I can acknowledge and understand the frustration of some colleagues, does not mean I grant them the right to behave badly towards other members of our community, including myself.
I am looking forward to holding many meetings around the issues we will be facing in the next months and years. I will work hard for these to be constructive and non-combative, and to set some clear rules of positive engagement before, during and after meetings. Otherwise, pivotal moments of collective inspiration will quickly evaporate and adversarial interactions will take valuable time away from the important things that we all want to achieve. Together, we should not allow that to happen. We have too much to lose.
