What’s Your Secret?
There was a man, described by some as being mystically inclined,
who was renowned for his ability to get difficult conflicts resolved.
Warring nations, divisive stockholders, labor strife, collapsing
governments, as well as a number of failing marriages among the
rich and famous had all benefitted from his counsel and negotiating
skills.
However, for whatever reason, the man always had insisted that
participating parties sign a contract prior to the commencement of
even preliminary discussions concerning a given issue or problem
that would bind everyone concerned to absolute silence with respect
to what took place during discussions and ensuing activities which,
hopefully, led to resolution. The nature of the contract was such that
everyone was held collectively responsible for breaches committed by
any single individual connected with the conflict-resolution process,
and the penalties were rumored to be quite substantial.
Whether out of fear of financial consequences and legal
entanglements, or due to the fact that the man had never failed in
any assignment he accepted in which the condition of silence was
honored by all parties, an aura of inviolability tended to shroud his
activities, methods, comments, and suggestions whenever he was
engaged in a process of conflict-resolution. Moreover, because this
man was a very private individual, and, therefore, rarely gave
interviews of any kind, there were few clues available which might
shed light on how or why he seemed to be so successful with
situations that, on the surface, often appeared not to be amenable to
being resolved in a harmonious fashion.
A faculty member of a prestigious university, who had cross
appointments in both the School of Management and the School of
Public Administration, knew that the aforementioned conflict
resolution specialist was getting on in years, and the professor feared
that a great treasure of knowledge would be lost forever if steps were
not taken, before the man died, to try to establish a permanent
record of how this individual was able to, so regularly, work his
magic in situations laden with tension and animosity. So, he spoke
with various Deans within the university, as well as its president, and
the board of trustees, about taking a leave of absence in order to try
to persuade the man who could resolve conflicts to record his
extensive knowledge, techniques, methods, and so on, in order that
such understanding could be passed on to subsequent generations.
The plan was approved. Shortly thereafter, the professor began
his quest.
Although due to the notorious reclusiveness and reticence of the
focus of his research project the scholar was anticipating that his task
would prove to be both difficult and time-consuming, he was quite
surprised when he was granted an appointment to meet with the
great man early in the following week. The professor was to be given
just one hour to ask whatever questions he wished, and there would
be no follow-up meetings permitted.
Realizing that an hour was not very much time in which to
gather information that might affect the way courses in conflict-
resolution would be taught in universities for generations to come,
the professor struggled to try to come up with questions that,
hopefully, were capable of penetrating to the heart of the matter and
induce the man to divulge some of his secrets. After several days of
hard work, the professor felt ready to conduct his interview.
When the time for the meeting arrived, the professor was
escorted into a sort of large board room, where the man to be
interviewed was awaiting the scholar’s arrival. The two shook hands
and took seats.
After exchanging a few preliminary remarks, the professor
decided to ask his first question, and as he did, he encountered the
first of many problems. The scholar would ask a question, and he
would be met with responses such as: “I’m sorry, but that is
classified information”, or, “Contractual obligations prevent me
from answering that”, or, “I would need the permission of so-and-so
to be able to provide you with any information on this”, or, “This
touches upon on-going negotiations, and, therefore, I am not at
liberty to comment,” or, “That decision has been sealed by the
Courts.”
Question after question was met with similar responses. The time
allotted for the interview was rapidly drawing to an end, and the
professor had not come up with one useful piece of information.
The great resolver of conflicts could tell that the scholar was
frustrated with the way things were going in the interview. The
former man smiled sympathetically and a little sheepishly, saying, as
he did: “I’m sorry if I seem very uncooperative. This was not my
intention when I granted the interview. I truly did hope that, maybe,
if circumstances permitted, something of value to you, and, possibly,
others, might arise out of our meeting.
“There really are some very important reasons why information
concerning these issues are so tightly controlled. Much of our success
depends on such secrecy being maintained in a very rigorous
manner, and if this sort of information were to become public
knowledge, many of our future efforts might be undermined and
come to nought.”
Looking at his watch, he continued on: “I fear our time is nearly
at an end, but there may be one thing I can do for you before you
leave. What I have in mind is this.
“There are several brief meetings which I have to conduct in this
room. Why don’t you sit in on these meetings, and, perhaps, you may
catch a small sense of the flavor of how we go about things, and,
therefore, you won’t feel your time has been wasted?”
The professor wanted to try to make the best of what had proven
to be a very disappointing set of circumstances, and, consequently,
he agreed to the suggestion. His host requested that the professor just
observe during the meetings and if the scholar had any comments or
questions concerning what went on to please wait until the two
meetings had been completed.
The great resolver of conflicts pressed one of the buttons on the
intercom and asked for someone to be sent in. A short while later, a
woman entered the room.
She took the seat indicated, and as soon as she was seated, she
began to complain about one of her co-workers. The woman went on
for some time, describing how the man was creating difficulties of
one sort or another with a certain project.
When she had finished, the resolver of conflicts said: “Yes, Yes,
you are quite right in what you are saying. I will have a talk with
him, and let’s see what happens.”
The woman left happy with the results of their meeting. As soon
as she had left the room, the man again pressed one of the buttons on
the intercom and asked for the individual about whom the woman
just had been complaining.
The door opened, and a man walked in. He took the seat where
the woman previously had sat.
He was asked: “So, how is such and such a project going?”
As soon as the question was raised, the man who had just entered
began to criticize the woman who recently had left the room. The
man spoke critically about that woman approximately as long as she
had gone on about him, and he voiced many of the same sorts of
criticism.
When the man stopped talking, the great resolver of conflicts
said: “You are right, and I couldn’t agree with you more. We’ll have
to look into this matter carefully and see what can be done.”
The man, who previously had been the focus of the woman’s
complaints, stood, expressed his gratitude for having had the
opportunity to speak, and walked out of the room. When the man
had left the room, closing the door behind him, the scholar’s host
swivelled in his chair and faced the professor with a look that invited
the scholar to speak whatever might be on his mind.
The professor hesitated for a moment, unsure whether, or not,
to say what he was thinking. Finally, he said: “I might be missing
something here, but, quite frankly, your conduct during these two
meetings seems rather contradictory. A woman comes in and
complains about a man, and you agree with her. Then, the man about
whom she was complaining comes in and proceeds to criticize that
woman for having made the same sorts of mistake as the woman
alleged with respect to the man, and, once more, you completely
agreed with the complaints.
“What those two people were saying was diametrically opposed.
They couldn’t both be simultaneously correct.”
The man looked at the professor, nodded his head, and replied:
“You’re right.”
Horizons Menu
|
