Leadership = Controversy with Civility

The following is a summary of “Controversy with Civility” by Cecilio Alvarez, a chapter in Leadership for a Better World.  The full citation is below.

The next part of our introduction to the Social Change Model of Leadership Development (SCM) is Controversy with Civility.  This aspect of the SCM is not about conflict management, per se, but how to develop a culture of civility within any group you are working with.  Mishandled conflict has the ability to destroy a group’s effectiveness.  The opposite situation, in which all members think so much alike that harmony always rules, is not desirable either, because it means that the diversity of perspectives and ideas that increase a group’s effectiveness is not present.  Disagreement is a normal, even healthy, part of the group process and competent leaders know how to create a culture that keeps it within the bounds of civility.

The term “controversy” is used instead of conflict for an important reason.  Conflict has opposing sides, and the emphasis is usually on winning.  Controversy, on the other hand, is usually more focused on ideas rather than the people involved, and characterized by dialog and resolution.  Controversy can invite others into the discussion; conflict likely causes them to remember an appointment they forgot. 

According to Alvarez (2009), most groups take one of three approaches with regard to controversy:  They “maintain civility by avoiding controversy,” they “embrace controversy, but without civility,”  or they “promote controversy with civility” (pp. 271-272). The first approach is the “peace at any cost” dynamic where there is surface pleasantness, but the smiles are occasionally pasted on over gritted teeth and bitten tongues and conflicts are suppressed or avoided like grim death.  The second approach is the opposite, the “slash and burn” method of disagreement, if you will.  It’s framing every disagreement in terms of winners and losers, with few to no rules of engagement. It’s equally exhausting and destructive as the first approach.    The third way is obviously the most positive, as everyone gets to share their thoughts – no gritted teeth here – but does so in a respectful way that involves listening and asking questions as much as talking. 

An effectively leader actively creates a culture in which everyone brings ideas to the table and they are given the attention they deserve.  (That’s not to say that all ideas or perspectives are weighted equally.  The rules of evidence still apply.)  So how do you create a culture within a group that encourages Controversy with Civility?

Two keys are building trust and creating dialog, not debates.  Kouzes and Posner (as cited in Alvarez, 2009), provide the following guidance on fostering trust:

1.       Use the word we.  When discussing the group’s goals and accomplishments, remember that no one person does the group’s work alone.  Be clear that the ideas and the credit for success belong to the whole group rather than a single person.

2.       Encourage interactions.  When people are isolated from each other, it is difficult to build trust.  Schedule regular meetings that include opportunities for people to interact, not just hear announcements.

3.       Create a climate of predictability.  In order to build trust, group members need to do what they say they will do.  Follow through on commitments and keep promises.   Reward honesty even when it brings bad news.

4.       Involve everyone in planning and problem solving.  Avoid making decisions behind closed doors.

5.       Trust others.  When members risk opening up to each other, sharing what they value and what they hope for, they demonstrate willingness to trust each other.   (p. 278)

The final thing to keep in mind when creating this culture is to create dialogs, not debates.  Fostering Controversy with Civility means shaping the expectations of the group so that disagreements aren’t about people taking sides, personal attacks and winning.  It’s about seeking understanding and creating the best solution for the group, based in evidence where possible.  Controversy with Civility may feel awkward, but, when it’s done right, it’s a sign of a healthy, trusting, thinking group that will be stronger for the effort.

Full citation:

Alvarez, C.  (2009).  Controversy with civility.  In Komives, S. R., Wagner, W. & Associates (Eds.), Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development (pp. 237 – 262). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.