Stalemate is not stability
Adaptability is an essential leadership skill, and this capability fits well with a new model for resolving conflict in social relations. Leaders need to avoid stalemate, which can trigger a sense of resentment. We need betterment within our populism, especially within stakeholder capitalism.
Most of us have experienced stalemate in life, work, and society. When it is within our control, we find new habits or conversations to get unstuck. Stalemate may provide a time to think, but we know what we really want to achieve is betterment. Betterment can be another word for progress. However, progress can sometimes be pursued without the common good in mind. Just as continued stalemate can cause uneasiness, progress without betterment can too.
Without betterment, populism stirs.
Populism is viewed by some as good and others as bad. Theodore Roosevelt was considered a populist, and some think our previous president was one as well. Neither had complete support as populists. While Roosevelt embraced our institutions, the previous administration did not. Roosevelt was not a perfect populist, but he had a track record of working to move beyond stalemate and pursue progress.
When populism becomes focused on resentment and not betterment, our business and societal interests began to fail. Only when our spirit stirs to lift our democracy and engage individuals in renewed conversations and actions can we move forward inclusively. We cannot please everyone, but we can satisfy more when we use empathy to understand the broader impacts of our policies and craft actions to address a common good for as many as possible (rather than a select few).
U.S. Senator Joe Manchin and the filibuster.
In our politics, the Senate filibuster is discussed a lot lately. The current form of the filibuster is different from the original, and with a 50-50 Senate, stalemate is evident. Without some resolution, an impasse on key issues will remain, and unrest may result. Some say that Senator Manchin’s opposition to changing the filibuster is a good thing; it encourages bi-partisan policies. Others say it is harmful since critical issues remain unaddressed. Without progress, instability may result through populist resentment.
This political situation serves as a good case study in how to move beyond stalemate.
Moving beyond stalemate requires adaptability in conflict resolution.
What Senator Joe Manchin decides to do this week will determine if a stalemate remains or a sense of stability returns by pursuing policies of betterment. When resolving conflicts or deadlocks, understanding the interdependence of those involved is essential. If we commit to one side with no desire to understand the other, a continued stalemate will always be the result. Again, stalemate may be acceptable in the short term, but the beat of resentment will grow louder in the long term.
An interesting study defines a model of resolving social conflicts. The model outlines vital leadership capabilities, which include:
Dominance – The power play when needed, meaning at some point, pursuing a move to move forward is required.
Benevolence – The win-win pursuit, meaning a leader needs to demonstrate a higher purpose in their words and actions.
Support – Seeking input and assistance from other stakeholders, working to collaborate and persuade.
Appeasement – Giving in to gain, conceding on some points or taking hits from the other side while waiting for the right moment to pursue change.
Autonomy – Using the freedom to plan thoughtfully, developing alternative scenarios and options to gain vital goals.
Nelson Mandela was highlighted as a leadership example of someone who navigated effectively between these different leadership skills.
In Senator Manchin’s example, he has used each of these capabilities except for dominance. When it comes to the voting rights legislation, many have bought into his compromise. With the existing filibuster, his compromise could be ignored, resulting in stalemate.
The leadership capacity for dominance should be Senator Manchin’s Plan B. If he adopts a stance that a U.S. Senator needs to speak on the Senate Floor until an issue is resolved, then he may change the dynamics and open the opportunity for policies of betterment to begin again. Just as Mandela used legal power to stand up for positive change, Senator Manchin can too by refining the filibuster.
The point is: We cannot let stalemate rule.
In business and society, stalemate is not stability. Stalemate is the opposite. By not resolving stalemate, resentment will rise, and the failure of institutions will grow. In business, stalemate results in good organizational cultures becoming toxic. In society, stalemate results in autocratic actions and growth in protests. No business or society can withstand a perpetual stalemate. The result will be terminal.
We need to develop (and demand) new leadership capacities to resolve conflicts and pursue betterment. In an emerging stakeholder capitalism model, new leadership capabilities are required. Building capacities around dominance, benevolence, support, appeasement, and autonomy are solid starting points. A leadership imperative is knowing when to use which capacity.
References
Coleman, P. T., Kugler, K. G., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Nowak, A., & Vallacher, R. (2012). Getting down to basics: A situated model of conflict in social relations. Negotiation Journal, 28(1), 7–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2011.00324.x
Curwen, T. (2016, July 15). Review: Theodore Roosevelt whipped up a frenzy of populism in 1912. We’re still living with the consequences. Los Angeles Times.
da Silva, F. C., & Vieira, M. B. (2018). Populism as a logic of political action. European Journal of Social Theory, 22(4), 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431018762540
Filibuster rules changes epitomize the Senate | The Government Affairs Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved June 22, 2021.
Millhiser, I. (2021, June 17). Joe Manchin’s sweeping new voting rights proposal, explained. Vox.