Mission consistency is essential for non-profit teams. But sometimes organizations try to force employee consensus or even use alignment rhetoric in place of the real thing.
Reading List Recommendation: Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Doris Kearns Goodwin
Since published in 2005, this book has been recognized by scholars, political and business figures alike for the detailed portrait it paints of Presidential leadership during the time of national crisis that was the United States Civil War. Team of Rivals helps modern leaders consider some of the valuable lessons Lincoln’s approach to naming and managing his cabinet may offer to managing teams today.
Over the course of the book’s more than 700 pages, readers are introduced to a lot of lesser known biographical information about Lincoln and his road to politics and the White House. Kearns Goodwin also paints an incredibly vivid and broad canvas of the multiple issues facing Lincoln and the nation, including a fascinating and sometimes overlooked dive into the history of the institution of slavery as a political and economic lever used by many sides to wedge political compromises and advance the nation-building project underway. Both historians and everyday citizens have varied opinions on Lincoln’s successes, compromises and failures, and the book offers readers much to contemplate in considering his historical legacy.
Engaging disagreement toward unified purpose
At first glance, Team of Rivals is not an obvious choice for a reading list focused on ideas to help teams move toward mission success. But inside this book are essential nuggets on acknowledging the presence of disagreement, managing through it with the organization’s needs in mind and helping a team find acceptance with solutions crafted from a variety of perspectives.
In this book we learn that Lincoln:
- Sought out rival Presidential candidates to join his cabinet after his win, having to talk some of them into joining despite their initial refusal;
- Held open house style receptions to hear the opinions of constituents and politicians who often objected to his own views or plans;
- Requested one-on-one meetings with members of opposing parties or thought leaders to solicit input and perspectives;
- Did not make decisions via committee nor expected everyone in his cabinet to agree with all of his ultimate decisions;
- Asked his advisors to acknowledge their own contrasting opinions and then still vow to support the final decisions of the administration.
It’s easy to play armchair historian with the full benefit of 150+ years of hindsight and critique whether this approach worked for Lincoln, his constituents and the country. But the concepts behind the actions still hold value for today’s teams.
What can mission-focused leaders learn from Lincoln’s approach?
1 Don’t hide from disagreement. It exists whether we want it to or not. Pretending that it doesn’t can backfire, sparking in-fighting, passive aggression, resentment or competitive agenda struggles inside teams.
2 Develop a consistent way of dealing with disagreement. Whether casual or more formal, consider a policy that seeks to outline how disagreements will be heard, settled and decisions communicated. Allow employees to know what they can raise, how their voice can be heard and why the organization values different perspectives.
3 Train the team on what counts. Everyone has opinions about everything. Not every opinion rises to the standard of an organizational disagreement. Define what it is and what it is not.
4 Make decisions when disagreements arise. It’s essential to listen to the team. But leaders must break the ties and settle the debates, taking ownership for the ultimate decision of the organization. Without this, teams may just wind up arguing, debating and disagreeing in circles – which can get toxic to workplace culture.
5 Ask employees to voice and also to accept. As much as employees need to be heard, they need to understand when to tolerate decisions and move in step with the team – whether they agree or not. Certainly this does not apply to legal and ethical violations.
As we can see from social media, our culture has normalized recording and sharing our vent sessions and opinions to the people we know and those we don’t. These days team members may feel their beliefs, values and ideas are challenged everywhere they turn – from the broader social, political and economic environment to their family relationships and even at work. Helping workplace teams deal in constructive ways with their varying opinions can help non-profits avoid public conflict, authentically engage employee voices and stay more focused on mission rather than the dynamics of disagreement.
