Tony, you genius.

Just recently I read a blog-post which was trending on LinkedIn. I do find management and emotional intelligence subjects quite fascinating. Others may not, BUT whether you like it or not, it affects most of us so therefore you have an invested interest. Read on.

The writer of the blog, Tony Schwartz, CEO of [insert company] wrote that in order to resolve difficulties at work with colleagues of many different descriptions, you first must first blame yourself for any misunderstanding. Sounds harsh, I know. Even though I do not think that this is exactly what he meant... that's how it read. Tony observed that in essence, for there to be friction or a grievance between a boss/employee/colleague there had to be causation [ignorant idiot] and resistance [stubborn idiot]. Well, for Tonys well written post to make sense he automatically assumed that you [the reader] were the stubborn idiot. So his solution to the problem was to defuse the situation by asking you, the stubborn idiot to be the bigger man or woman.... and walk away. His logic is quite correct. There needs to be an II and a SI for there to be a problem. Who's to say that they are not one and the same person though? ;)

His blog erupted with comments from lots of outraged SI's and II's. Most of them pointing out the obvious flaws to Tonys observations, and that was whoever gets the last word doesn't by default gain moral high ground or indeed learn a thing. Therefore surely it was cowardly to let a colleague walk right over you if you are RIGHT... all this in the name of not creating a scene at work. Meh....

I liken Tonys point of view to a bystander who has just happened upon a fight in the street. He doesn't know who started the fight, he doesn't know who is to blame... but assumes a strategy which is the path of least resistance. Let the person who can empathise first and the most, shoulder the responsibility - because heck, they should know better right?

As Tony leaves the kerfuffle... war breaks out. You see this kind of imparting blame doesn't work in my eyes. If there is to be resolution, then BOTH parties have to accept responsibility! If one party is resisting taking any responsibility then pitying them and moving on will not make their life any more fulfilling. To be fair - that's not your job either.

Mediation is key. This is best sourced from a third party who actually wants to prevent a dispute from becoming a life long grudge....

Tony's reasoning is lovely. I love it. Unfortunately, it is way too optimistic. It assumes that we all want to get along, even of it means becoming a subjective doormat. I'm with you Tony!! But I won't employ those tactics because my life is way too short to give way to those few among us who preside over the kingdom of La-La land.

A good friend once told me "when debating a position with someone, the first person to empathise with the other loses" That stuck with me. I reject it, but it stuck with me because this is an entirely selfish way of resolving differences. This particular person was a lawyer and fledgling politician. No surprises there then.

I will leave you with one more thought. If Tonys goal was to provoke a response and generate page views... didn't he do well!!

Well... I rode the back of his great post for long enough.

Engine[er]