One Conflict, Two Realities
by Trista Schoonmaker
“He’s just not a good leader!”
I was working with two senior leaders who had a conflictual relationship which had deteriorated to the point that it was disrupting their teams. During the intake interviews, they both said—almost word for word: “I’m glad we’re doing this. He needs to understand that he’s just not a good leader.”
See if you can spot the problem:
Leader #1: Believed “good leadership” means inclusion—so everyone who might have a perspective on an issue is included in every meeting. Pre-meetings to discuss issues leave people out and lead to confusion, so they shouldn’t exist. A good leader brings people together to collaborate about everything in real-time to be sure we achieve the best solution.
Leader #2: Believed “good leadership” means removing obstacles so his people can accomplish things more efficiently. A good leader researches the issues ahead of time, contacting various parties to better understand and troubleshoot, and solves problems before they create broader impacts. This minimizes wasted time in meetings and keeps people on track.
Can you guess how this played out?
Leader #2 would hear about a problem and call Leader #1 or people on his team, looking for an efficient solution—and would be met with resistance to even talk about it without holding a wider meeting. In the meeting, Leader #1 would introduce issues Leader #2 hadn’t heard about yet, so he didn’t have the deep knowledge to offer ideas and solutions in the moment.
Leader #1 felt like he was fighting for the representation of his teams’ expertise. Leader #2 felt like he was being thrown under the bus in public settings again and again.
It’s no wonder they found it increasingly annoying to work together. But looking closely at the intentions of both, it’s obvious they were both doing their best to be a “good leader” by their own definition.
The problem was, they didn’t see their definition of “good leadership” as one possible definition, but as THE definition. And from that vantage point, the Other was obviously not living up to the standard.
Conflict often narrows our perspective into a conviction that our view is reality itself. But, as writer Anne Lamott reminds us, “Reality is unforgivingly complex.” When we treat a single perspective as the whole truth, we flatten that complexity—and the people inside it.
So what can you do when you find yourself in a conflict, and your perspective feels like THE truth? Get curious! Start asking questions. Keep your mind open to the answers.
With these two leaders, the questions could have been:
What’s so important to you about understanding the problem before the meeting?
What’s so important to you about collaborative sessions?
How can I behave in a way that respects your approach to leadership as well as my own?
Unfortunately, in this case, the two leaders couldn’t get there. While they found ways to talk to each other more effectively, they couldn’t broaden their perspectives enough to respect each other as “good leaders” in different ways—and adapt their behaviors accordingly. The result was continued frustration for their teams and less efficiency for the organization.
The next time you feel frustrated with someone, don’t let yourself fall into the trap of thinking your perspective is the only right one. Ask yourself: What definition am I using? What definition might they be using? Holding those questions side by side honors the complexity that Anne Lamott points to—and turns the conflict from a judgment about character into a conversation about perspective.