Keep an open mind to avoid corporate cold war

At 7pm on October 22, 1962, then US President, John F. Kennedy appeared on national television screens across the USA with an important announcement for the American people; The US navy was to be deployed to erect a military blockade around the island of Cuba which lies 90 miles off the south coast of America. Why? Their archrival, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), led by Nikita Khrushchev, had in the past weeks delivered a pile of missiles to the island at the behest of its leader Fidel Castro. This, said the US President, created an existential threat to peace in his country. Nuclear headed Soviet supplied Cuban missiles this close to the US was something he could not stomach because neither Cuba nor America had a soft side for each other. He issued an ultimatum to the ‘aggressors’; They were to respect the blockade, which was in place to prevent them from delivering more missiles, and withdraw the arms already installed and battle ready on the island or face the full wrath of the USA in war! The two Superpower leaders, distrustful of each other, traded barbs. Nikita’s Generals threatened to push through the blockade, sailing their warships quite close to it, while Kennedy’s readied for battle should they dare cross the ‘red line’. The world watched. Global tension rose.

In the end diplomatic sense prevailed. While the military fronts readied for war, the diplomats traded letters. After weeks of deliberation the USSR agreed to respect the blockade as well as withdraw their missiles from the island in return for the US removing their own missile installations from what Moscow considered its doorstep, Turkey, and promising never to invade Cuba. The watching world exhaled in relief. Historians are unanimous that this was the closest the world has ever come to a nuclear conflict and a third world war.

I opine that similar to the Cuban missile crisis, as that infamous standoff is commonly referred to, we often find ourselves in ‘cold war’ confrontation situations in the workplace. Mismatched expectations, long buried issues suddenly resurfacing from under the carpet, perceived harassment or favoritism, conflicting value systems and fear of impending change are all potential triggers of conflict. Because people form the DNA of organizations, and people are inherently different, it is virtually impossible to find an organization that does not have to contend with conflict resolution. Conflict resolving skills are therefore some of the most important skills that a leader must possess in his or her leadership toolkit. But just what are those skills?

Leaders who are adept at conflict resolution demonstrate mastery in the art of devolving their emotions from professional exchanges, whether positive or negative, thus separating issues from individuals. They are known to display the same countenance whether discussions are perceived to be in or against their favor and are therefore likely to make rational decisions either way. Furthermore, they tend to develop less stress in the workplace than those who carry their emotions visibly and this enables calmness in decision making. Mastery in emotional intelligence in this way helps one develop a ‘solution creator’ mindset which is great for managing in conflict situations.

When one has a high degree of emotional intelligence, they can quickly and early identify situations that could potentially develop into conflict and act to divert them before they become a problem. The sixth sense that helps them master this art of foresight comes from the clear mindedness that a constantly calm persona helps them develop. They also understand the need to actively listen to arguments before they offer guidance. Active listening is a skill that enables the listener to apply all senses in ensuring they pay full attention to the speaker. This drives mutual understanding which in turn allows the listener to make proposals that allow for compromise. Because active listening creates mutual understanding, it makes it easier for these kinds of leaders to forge the environment for conflicting parties to work together at finding solutions, in so doing minimizing conflict.

Finally, a key attribute that only mastery of emotional intelligence delivers for parties on conflicting sides of an argument, point of view or whatever other situation that the conflict has created is the ability to ‘agree to disagree’. This is only possible when the parties are able to understand that the conflict, they find themselves in has only arisen as a result of hard and fast opinions on both sides and have nothing to do with the messenger of those opinions. In these instances, highly emotionally intelligent players are able to walk away from the conflict without ill feelings towards each other. This is a tricky one though if the conflict is similar in nature to the one between Presidents Kennedy and Khrushchev. Global citizens today should be glad that the diplomatic interventions did not lead to an ‘agree to disagree’ conclusion because we probably would not be here today to tell the story.