Do your words help?

This is a re-visit to an old blog of mine. Originally published 8 years ago, I took a moment and discovered I did not completely agree with myself…or at least I felt a few things needed to be changed and explored. So…

Wherever you see font like this, you know there are new thoughts to add. And if you encounter a strike through, it means I have left the original words but had some change of mind to add or take away.

Let us begin…

Do you have poison on your team? Or is it a form of healthy opposition to make the system stronger?

I have considered this problem for a long time. I hate gossip. Much of what I have seen of team dynamics gone bad is just the many faces and effects of gossip. Words are powerful and we all succumb to the power of the tongue at times. It gives us meaning and significance to be able to share an illicit story that portrays someone poorly. We feel accepted when we discuss the misgivings of someone pure while having coffee during a break. We all seem stronger when we can create a veil of weakness for someone in a leadership position.

All by the words we use in a team context. But do those poisonous moments also help to stimulate growth in spite of us?

OK, is it always poisonous? And does ‘water cooler’ talk always qualify as ‘gossip’. No. Gossip is poisonous, and this is what I mean by the power of discussing the misgivings of another. Gossip and office chatter can be separated, otherwise we paint malicious intentions on all such activity, and that simply is not true. The above assumption is also clearly polarising: Gossip vs Purity. Let us be clear, that is an oversimplification.

Gossip is malicious and aimed at making an enemy. There is space needed for people to vent and gain clarity within the shared context.

Oh the coffee shop…

So I was listening in on some adult directors of a larger church ministry talking at Starbucks after their leader left the table. Wow!! The tone completely changed in his absence. It went from unified vision, we are in this together, to, we don’t all want the same thing, I heard these things from people and they don’t want to be part of it anymore. The centring person at the table was struggling, clearly feeling a sense of betrayal to the person who left the table, but also wanting to help the others feel they were being heard. The ones talking about how wrong and broken everything was had clearly never adopted what they agreed to and would continue to do everything opposing in the background.

That scenario brought a few questions to mind: Does your vision direction solicit angry responses? And if your subordinate leaders team talks like you are the enemy when you leave…are they really leaders? Does this process help them digest and contextualise the greater vision unified direction, or are they simply waiting for the right moment to watch it collapse?

More importantly: Is it a communal direction or just your ‘vision’?

Do some people just need an ‘upper management-type’ enemy to be effective in their work? In case it doesn’t work? I suppose the better picture would be a ‘fall guy’ for if things go wrong.

I think about the ‘Canada 1867’ exhibit at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights this past year… (Back in 2018)

Responsible and representative. Those are the key words used to describe a governing structure that would become Canada under British rule. The process brought about some nasty conflicts, some of which became the factions of ‘patriotes’ (The French resistance from what is now Quebec) and ‘loyalists’ (The British loyalist settlers). This of course was a few decades before the documents and settlements were solidified to identify Canada as a new entity. Battles, insurrections, disagreements…all part of making a new idea a reality. Today we know that the story had many chapters to come, many matters to settle, and treaties to be struck. Responsible and Representative have taken on new meaning and more weight as we consider the original mindset of colonisers and settlers, learning new attitudes about sharing space with the First Peoples of this land.

More questions came to mind: Do we create ‘ patriotes’ and ‘loyalists’ in our leadership? Is it necessary in creating the next plateau of stability unity as a group?

Again at one of my Starbucks…

A lawyer, a business man, and their wives gather to talk about people whining about the decisions of others. It got pretty animated. Then they started talking about their church leadership with the same tone as the people they just finished complaining about. Everything they complained about in other people was now aimed in the other direction! Not a single mention of the duality in their conversation.

I don’t think they noticed. But maybe that is OK as well? A safe space to complain without seeking resolve to a situation, and not intending harm to anyone in the different spheres they discussed.

So what?

Maybe a contrarian view is necessary for growth. But if you are always the contrarian, and you consistently find yourself sneaking around to voice the opposite, then you might be a gossip you might need to ask why you feel powerless in your setting. If you aim to destroy what you are a part of, or more importantly, if you aim to destroy the people, you need to ask about your own intentions. Be careful how you wield the power of the word, especially as you lead.

Allowing space for people to choose the difference in what their words mean is important as well. The way of control is so often about taking power away, which in its essence is the opposite of leading well. Unity does not mean allegiance, it is not about creating a facade of agreement in all things. Leading in a safe manner means creating a space of learning to understand, allowing others to share in the direction, and giving room for all involved to discover the impact of all that they bring to the table.