9Move Slowly and Listen Longer Because academic culture is built on policy and policies, problems that fall outside of expectations can have effects across the organization. Students dissatisfied with a process can involve staff from many levels of the institu- tion. For example, a student demanded full refund for a criminology class she took. The financial operations department said “No refunds for any courses.” The student argued that the faculty member was not qualified to teach
the course and provided bad information. Discussion occurred at every level
of the administration, asking questions like “Was the faculty member qualified? Was the content appropriate; and did the student belong in the class?”
The department chair met with the student and listened to her story, including how she’d always dreamed of becoming a police officer. The chair
asked, “If I can find another section of the course with another instructor,
would you take it, at no cost?” Administrators shuttered at the thought of
“no cost” but they agreed and so did the student. This time she had a better experience and leaders could relax about the problem. Listening enabled
the department chair to calm the student’s anxiety by identifying the real
issues behind the student’s thinking: a need for emergency money, lack of
support at home, and fear about her writing ability.
Deep listening is an essential skill. Often people only half listen to another party. Rather than listening to understand, people often think about a
reply or retort, wait to relate how something similar happened to them, or
do not listen at all. Listening to understand is a skill that all leaders need to
develop, but it is especially important for diverse, complex environments
like colleges and universities. Listening creates an important bridge for
problem solving. Sometimes people just want and need to be heard, even
if we can do nothing to change a situation.
Not If but What to Negotiate?
There are many ways that leaders need to change the mental model
brought to an issue. The first change is the focus from if there can be a negotiation, to what can be negotiated. There are always some rules we cannot bend, some institutional realities that we cannot change, but there is
nothing that cannot be discussed in a negotiation. Once we identify what
we believe cannot be changed and what the priorities are, we can move
discussion to what is possible.
For example, an Academic Dean announced that in six weeks all classroom courses would have to have an online component. Immediately faculty objected, but the Dean responded that “This is nonnegotiable.” The
faculty countered, “Is this the end of classroom teaching as we know it?
Our students will go to other schools. Our faculty are not trained to teach
online.” The two sides decided to meet and negotiate a solution for the apparent divide. The Dean explained that all she wanted was a depository of
course information, a place for an online forum, and the sharing of information taught online with classroom instructors. Faculty agreed that this
would not compromise their principles for classroom learning.
When we negotiate, it enables parties to identify what is most important
for them in a potential decision. Each side educates the other and each
side becomes better informed about the problem that confronts them.
Managing Difficult People
Occasionally, we encounter problems that might
be easy to resolve if it wasn’t for the involvement of a difficult person. No matter how nice
you are and how well you explain the situation,
this person resists cooperation. The difficult person insists on one solution, of doing things “his
way,” and wanting something “now.” This person
doesn’t understand “no” and sees no need to
negotiate. When we appear to block the way, we
may encounter threats designed to bring decision makers to their knees.
Dealing with difficult people is a big subject that
can (and does) have books devoted to it. There are
effective tactics, but we have to use them carefully
lest we become this person’s newest target. First,
shift the discussion paradigm. Explain that we are
not the enemy and that we can join forces in attacking the problem. Next, slow the person down,
their voice speed, their demand for solutions,
and their feelings of helplessness in the situation.
Slow them down so that we can work with them
in deconstructing the problem. Once again, practice deep listening through probing questions and
displays of empathy. Take the power out of their
anger, frustration and disappointment, which fuels
escalation of the problem. Avoid a battle of control.
Use phrases such as “What are we going to do with
this? Or, how are we going to help you manage the
situation?” You may not solve the problem, but we
may change the difficult person’s objective from a
battle victory to a practical solution.
There are some people, however, who will not
respond to these techniques. We might need to
tell them the harsh truth about the way they are
being received and perceived. For example, a faculty member who was very competent applied
for promotion. Unfortunately application materials included his comments about how he had not
been appreciated in the past year, how he was
not making enough money and needed the promotion for that reason, and how he should not
really have to document some of the evidence.
The dean spoke with him and asked him to read
these comments as if he was a reviewer. The faculty member quickly realized that he was being
passive-aggressive and that these comments
would only annoy the promotion committee. He
honestly thought that these were comments
that were appropriate until he understood how he
would be perceived by others.