Surfacing conflict rather than banking it

Access and debate as what universities owe

Meric Gertler: So, There are a number of ways of answering that, and, but let me boil it down to a few simple ideas. First of all, access, opportunity, exactly what we were talking about just a minute ago. The best universities in the country need to be and need to be seen to be places where any student who's academically qualified has an opportunity to enter, has an opportunity to complete their studies and graduate and succeed. that has a number of implications for admission strategy, financial aid, and more. and again, I think many Canadian universities have tackled those challenges quite successfully. The University of Toronto, a place I know best, has had an access guarantee in place, since I think 1998. Policy enacted by the governing council, which basically says if you're good enough to get in, we will find a way to support you, and make sure you finish your studies. And that policy was really quite pivotal in not just shaping the admissions strategy of the university, but in helping to define fundraising priorities, for successive fundraising campaigns starting in the late 1990s, and continuing on to this very day. it's one of the reasons why, student financial aid and, and scholarship support for students is, I think, the most popular category of giving, for donors, to the University of Toronto. and we've, you know, raised, north of a, a one and a half billion dollars of endowment, for financial aid. That doesn't happen by accident. But that's the first point, that, that Universities, both public and private, I think, need to be seen as places where anyone who's good enough to get in can get in and can, can thrive and benefit from that, that great, experience that they have. And I hope we can continue, to uphold that goal. So that's one of the things that universities owe society. Secondly, I think universities, need to be seen as places that enable and support effective debate, discussion, disagreement about tough topics. And frankly, I think, you know, what we've seen in recent years has been a great deal of unhappiness about The failures of, or perceived failures of universities around the world to perform that function, to uphold that function. And if you unpack that a little bit, it comes down to a few kind of component ideas. One is that, we may not have done as good a job as we ought to have in, representing a diversity, a broad diversity of views on difficult issues, or discouraging, you know, we may be guilty of discouraging those who hold, non-mainstream views from expressing those views openly and honestly because they, will be worried about, you know, the kind of, implications and the kind of, you know, pejorative nature of, of the, the kind of, criticism coming their way. Secondly, that, we haven't really equipped members of our community with the ability to have those difficult conversations effectively, that, as a result, they have degraded into, you know, shouting matches, or instances where we sort of hurl slogans at one another without really seriously engaging in substantive evidence-based, debate and discussion. And so, you know, we have come to appreciate that that skill set is something, that capacity is something that we need to invest in development.

Leadership learnings across four countries

Iain Martin: I think there's a couple of key learnings that transcend almost any of the other things, which is there are very few challenging leadership problems that cannot be solved. By actually getting people into a room and having difficult conversations. It's become a bit of a joke in my team, but it's, it's pick up the phone, don't send an email. And it is how do you build that culture of what do you need to do to solve those difficult problems? The other uniform thing that I've realized is how important recruitment is to your leadership team and your leadership recruitment. And getting great people who will be an advocate for the area you're recruiting them to support, but a champion for the whole institution and making that really clear from day one. It is very easy to suddenly have basically the rubber baron sitting around the table trying to decide how the institution gets carved up, as opposed to how do we make the institution stronger. And setting those parameters from day one. You sort of inherently know it, but it's one that I've really come back to, and now every time I make a senior appointment that sits large is, are they going to be able to do that in a good way that's for the benefit of the whole institution? And you might say it's obvious, but you and I will have seen there are lots of times where people do not want to play that. They are there to champion just their little corner of the institution at almost any price.

Daniel Atlin: I love calling that out, actually, Ian, the fact that you need to be expert in your field and in your domain, but at the same time, you have to be that sort of team player who knows when to pitch in on behalf of the enterprise as well. And I think that's so important, especially when you bring people in who are either academics and in a very different type of leadership into the senior administrator roles, or else even from people from outside in different sectors too. Having that sort of understanding and getting that sort of shift made in people so important in a people-laden, values-laden institution like a university.

Iain Martin: And I think the final thing that I've learned over that time is the importance of narrative and storytelling in leadership. I'm, my daughters would be unkind, nerd or geek, but I'm a numbers-driven, technology-driven person who's got, if you look at my personality type, I'm very much in that, understand it, work through it logically. Of course, that's the solution starting point. Whereas you rapidly come to realize that actually You need to have that understanding, but you've got to have a really strong sense of storytelling and narrative because that gets you to where you need to get to. And that for me was a big learning. And I think if I look where I'm different now than I was 20 years ago, I'm much better at starting with the storytelling underpinned by the technology rather than the other way around.

Worries: AI assessment and lost middle ground

Iain Martin: As we touched on earlier, I think the thing that makes me most worried is AI and assessment, because if you think about the educational value of a university education, that ability to warrant that we've got students coming out with a particular set of skills, experiences, knowledges is really important. And if we lose that, then I think that really does throw into question the whole piece. The other thing that worries me, how do we return universities to being a middle ground space where you can have genuinely difficult conversations about genuinely challenging ideas that don't descend into personal vitriol, personal attack, and the absolutism that we're seeing with many debates at the moment, which is you're either 100% with us Or you are evil. And I, I, I use that word with caution, but it's almost got to that point now that, that, and I think we have a great opportunity as a sector to sort of regain that space. But again, it's going to require some pretty brave leadership along the way, because it's not going to be easy. But that does worry me, because again, if we lose that space of the university is there to have these difficult conversations, then where in society do we have them? And whether it is political environment, whether it is a social media world where algorithms are driving us into our own little echo chambers, it's got harder and harder. And as I say, I think that piece as well does worry me, but I think we accept it as a challenge, certainly I do, over the next few years to say we need to be having or hosting Conversations that are safe enough. And I use that term carefully because they are safe enough so people can engage. It might be challenging and uncomfortable for them, but they're not going to be attacked personally, but they are not so safe that you're not going to have challenge. And you and I both love our quotes and, Clark Kerr was sort of talking about his challenges leading the University of California system in the 1960s has got one I come back to, which is our job is to make students safe for difficult ideas, not difficult ideas safe for students. And that really has not changed. And I think alongside assessment in that sense of how do we have those really challenging conversations, explore the most difficult areas so important.

Conflict is inevitable: the Gottman point

Adam Kahane: I think the, I think maybe the basic thing is understand the difference and disagreement and conflict are inevitable. But unless you're in an organization where everybody can just do whatever they want, and so it doesn't matter, in most cases, including many aspects of universities and other organizations and families and neighborhoods, the reality is, if I can put it that way, that different people are trying to do different things, and there's going to be friction and conflict. So for me, that's the starting point. It's not a problem, it's a reality. So the question is how you deal with it. Well, you can ignore it, you can close your eyes, you can pretend it's not there, that works to some extent, but that has limits. And so when you get to that limit, you have to, yeah, find a way to deal with it or, or to work through it or work around it or make a tough call or quit or expel somebody. All of these are options. And the reason I'm saying it in that way is I've been very taken, and there's a famous marriage researcher whose name is John Gottman. He's written a lot of books on marriage from having tens of thousands of hours of recorded marital therapy sessions. And he has this amazing statistic that 69% of marital disagreements are not resolvable. They, they deal with things that are personality differences or differences in lifestyle needs. I think the point is the idea that we can work through everything and come to agreement, whether it's at a university or internationally or in a marriage, is just a fantasy. And he, he, he argues, as I think is what his, his work is famous for, is successful marriages are ones that find a way to deal with persistent non-agreement. So it's in that context that I don't think politeness is per se a problem, but acknowledging that, you know, we don't disagree about this thing, we can, maybe we'll be able to resolve it, or maybe we'll just have, and may, or maybe we'll have to get divorced, or maybe we'll just have to live with it. And that, it's neither true that We can't have, so it's not true we can't have any disagreement. It's not true that disagreement is fatal. That's, I think, the Gottman point.

Underestimating emotion and practising deliberated disagreement

Duncan Ivison: Huge amount of learnings because I think I underestimated the emotion about AI. I mean, I knew it was, obviously I knew it was a big issue for all of us, but I think I underestimated or, or I've learned a lot about just how passionate people are. About the risks of AI and the sense of not being in control of what the technology might do to us as an organization and to them as, you know, individuals, whether students or colleagues or partners. That was a real learning. You know, it was something that we probably should have anticipated, but, and it's been in a way a good process, but I was like, wow, we wanted to move fast because we had an opportunity and things are moving so fast. We, we didn't want to, you know, wait 18 months and have a hundred committees. We decided to go for it. And what I learned was there's a lot of anxiety and, and a lot of emotion wrapped up in, in what the people feel this technology is doing to our culture, to our, to our families, to, to our communities. Some good, but a lot bad. And, you know, so that was a really, that was a good learning, I think, moment for, for me in particular. It made me really want to make sure we were listening and, and, and adapting and adjusting and, and, and, you know, then adapting our, our, our engagement and our comms around this whole program of work in the right, in the appropriate way. Well,

Daniel Atlin: I imagine that engagement and dialogue is, is a huge part of this journey, actually, and, and creating forums that you can actually, you know, cultivate that as well.

Duncan Ivison: Yeah, absolutely. It's really important. You know, there's a, there's a concept in political philosophy called deliberated disagreement, and it sounds very Hokie and very, you know, so liberal and everything, but I really believe in it. There's a big difference between when you and I disagree without actually talking to each other, we just make assumptions about each other's beliefs and say, oh, that guy's a jerk. There's a big difference between that and actually having a conversation, and we might still disagree just as passionately. At the end of that conversation, but something has happened between us. There's been some recognition of, you know, between us. And I think that really matters in a university environment, which is fused with disagreement. So in my experience, turning up and having the conversation, standing up at the front of the room or whatever and saying, okay, let's talk about this, doesn't solve every problem, doesn't mean people leave feeling the world is instead of right. But there's a big difference between doing that and not doing it and just saying, well, we disagree, so we just leave it at that. You can't do it for everything, but for the things that really matter, it's important.

The 1,700-person town hall and welcoming controversy

Duncan Ivison: Now, having said all that, it's been quite controversial, right? Which is, I kind of welcome. I mean, you know, the first, Town hall, I do regular town halls, and the first town hall I had after we announced the Microsoft partnership, I think we had 1,700 people, you know, rock up, and it ranged from, this is evil, and you're destroying the institution, through to, where's my license? So I, you know, it's like, and I really welcome that because it is disruptive. It is discombobulating. It is challenging. We don't have all the answers. We don't know everything about the, the ultimate impact and consequences of this technology. But I believe strongly that it, it's at universities that we should be asking these questions and giving people the chance to challenge and deploy and use and experiment with this technologies. So yeah, we've really, we've really kind of decided to go for it, lean into it, give people access, but also have the debate. And, you know, we were really clear we wanted to make sure that it shouldn't depend on whether you, you buy it or you have to borrow a license off your friend. We also wanted to create a safe environment in which people can use the technology so that the beauty of the partnership with Microsoft is we have a really secure environment within which people can use the technology in, in all the appropriate ways and in all the ways that matter for an organization like us. So we're on our way, but it's been, you know, I really welcome the, the, the debate and the conversation that's followed in the wake of it.

From middle-child peacemaker to productive conflict

Daniel Atlin: Yeah, and I, and I was reflecting on this as well in advance of our conversation, Merry. So, thanks for giving me that opportunity and that gift of, of, of, of, of a good question too. so early on, I was, I'm a middle child, and, and, and, you know, I, I, I say that because in, in, in my role, you know, as a middle child, I was a little bit of the peacemaker. So, so always trying to, to, to find the, the, the peace between different, different sides, between my siblings, trying to find the path forward in the family. And I realized that I didn't like conflict, and, and, and, you know, and, and so, so I always thought I needed to resolve it. Sometimes before it actually, there was a productive conversation or, or, or, or that there was something, you know, achieved from that conflict or uncovering the real reasons for that conflict. And I recognize a lot of my mother in that, because my mother actually has always hated conflict and, and, and, and, sort of, sort of shied away from that, and she still does at the age of 91. So, but then at work, it showed up, I, I think in similar sort of ways where, where at I didn't like conflict, and I would always try and maybe I'd give in if, if someone was actually a little bit, conflicted, I'd, I'd avoid it. If I saw it in others as well, I just, just would avoid it and try and, and move forward. And then later on, you know, when you're in, in, in positions of, of leadership, your conflict is actually necessary, and you actually have to actually bring it out, you have to understand the rationale behind it. It, it actually, again, shows, and, and it's, and it's an important data point that actually shows that, that, that there's something that, that, that, that's important to be dealt with. And, you know, I think, I think it can be a very productive thing, and, but it actually requires a little bit of courage to be able to, to, to, to, you know, probe into that conflict, to be able to deescalate it, if it, if it's, if it's at a point that needs that, and able to actually uncover what's behind that, to be able to get it to a state where you can actually have a productive conversation and, and to, and to yield something, something that, that, that moves you beyond that conflict. It doesn't mean that you're always going to resolve it, it, sometimes it's going to be there, and, and, and it will be there forever. People don't have to like one another at work, they, they don't have to actually, you know, you know, be buddies and, and, and hang out, but they Actually have to be able to, to work together to a common purpose. And sometimes conflict will be always under the surface, but as long as you can actually make sure that it, that it's, it's called out and productive and understood, I think that, that, that's, that's been very important.

Helping people handle disappointment through ongoing dialogue

Merry Brown: Like, how do we help people? I mean, we're told no. I mean, part of being an adult, being a person, is that we're told no, we don't get our way. Even when we really think that we're right, and even if history proves that we were right. But a part of developing and growing is hearing no, and not getting your way. And so in conflict, conflict is normal, and the conflict's not the problem. It's when it's unmanaged, and then a lot of it is us, of course, as you said, managing our own emotions and how we show up in those conversations. So how do we help people, how do leaders help the people that they are leading deal with disappointment, deal with Trying to hear them, or hearing them, but maybe the other person doesn't receive it, the other person is, doesn't like the direction. Deal with not getting their way.

Daniel Atlin: So I, I, I think dialogue, you know, you know, in different stages and, and, and over, over a time period actually is, is, is very important to this. When, when I've had to deal with people in the past that, that, that, that have had a significant conflict or disappointment and maybe not getting a promotion, you know, you know, being able to, to let them air their grievances in some ways, you know, you know, to, to, to, to, to a point, explaining the rationale, and then, you know, leaving the room, but then following up, you know, and, and making sure that, you know, they, they feel that they've been heard at least, and then, and then continuing over time trying to, to, to, to mention it and, and, and normalize it in some ways, I guess, and create the new normal, right? I think that that, that's so important. I've been in other situations where I've seen leaders actually have a conflict and something, you know, blows up and, and they actually would, the, the leader who's the most senior person in the room would actually walk out and actually leave, leave, leave that. Like alone, and just hoping that it's going to actually solve itself. That, that's never a good strategy, because that means that, you know, you, you have actually this, this, you know, these two polarized positions that, that, that, with the attention that's not productive as well. So you need to be able to find a way to be able to turn that, that attention into something a little bit more productive, rather than having sitting there and fester and be under the surface.

Building senior team alignment and working through conflict

Daniel Atlin: So I think one of the biggest challenges that, that, that, these organizations have faced next is actually getting alignment around their, their senior team. Because they're such big organizations, you have a lot of, you know, people doing their own things and, and, and trying to do them all, all, you know, independently as well. And sometimes actually pushing back, I guess, at, at internal partners and others. Sounds a lot like a regular business as well, I know. And, so, so make, trying to spend time to be able to get people, you know, agreeing to the central sort of narrative, the central goals as well. You know, you can call it purpose, you can call it, you know, you know, you know, the, the, the key objectives. You have to spend a lot of time upfront on that. So building that team so that people can trust one another, but also building at the same time that sense of common, commitment, common alignment, and common purpose. And, I say that, the other challenge, especially in, in institutions that are, that are That are, you know, mission focused and in some ways I'd say, perhaps softer than, than, than, than, others in terms of their ROI, you have to really be comfortable with conflict as well. Because the best, the best initiatives are going to come out when there's a little bit of tension between players. And sometimes, I'd say leaders, avoid that and you need to actually, address that and also work through those issues because that's usually where, where the biggest results are going to be in terms of moving you forward and getting that alignment.

The CEO who named banking future conflict

Zora Artis: I worked with one organization and there's a, the case studies in, in the paper from the last study and high, high performing team. Goals, all that sort of stuff. And they were a client that I'd worked with for a couple of years, worked with them on culture. And then we were, we were doing the leadership team alignment, the executive team alignment. And, it turned out that they really weren't behaving as a team per se. It was really obvious, but there were all these underlying conflicts and things, all these behaviors that were coming up in the sessions that we were working on together. And the CEO had a moment of, one of those insights, insight moments, you know, when you're coaching and you can see the light bulb going off, and this happened in the, in the room. And he said, all those times that I get sent those emails, and he's talking to the, to the team, those emails where I'm CC'd on things. It was that passive, aggressive behavior when you're not making the decisions that need to be made, and I then bring you together, make the decision, and we move on. So we've never dealt with the conflict. He said, so what we're doing is we're really, we're banking future conflict. And I wrote that up on the board and he looked at me and I just turned around and I let there be silence in the room and I think the other, execs were just like, oh my goodness, he's actually said this, right? And he looked at me and he said, Zora, are you going to write about that on LinkedIn? I said, only if you write it with me. And I, I, I didn't. But then I wrote an article recently about it and I sent it to him and I said, oh, I think I should share this with you. And he's moved on from that organization and he came back and he said, oh, love it. I'm, I'm glad to see that a high-performing dysfunctional team can be of, of, of use to other people.

The dialogic process and its guardrails

Zora Artis: They, often they don't know how to unpack it. So they don't know how to have the right, they don't know what the approach is. So it's a dialogue that needs to be had. There's a way to do it. It's not a debate. It's not just a conversation. It's the dialogic process, and that's what I do in my work. So it's, it's a structured process that as coaches and facilitators, we can do with, with teams. And it can be learnt by, by the people in the organization. So they don't have to become dependent on us, but we can show them how to do it. So then it becomes part of what they do, and they can build that into the rhythm of how they work. So being able to bring things up. So You can genuinely, you can disagree with each other and still be aligned. So you can hold really different views, but as long as you're able to surface the views, to listen to each other and understand what sort of sits underneath the views, and then you can reach that shared clarity, what exists for the, that team, for that whole or for the team of teams or the organization, you can work that out together. So you can still hold disparate views, but you'll have a shared one and you work from that. It is about trust and you need trust to have alignment, but alignment also creates trust, which is, is interesting. And going through that dialogic process, you know, there are guardrails, you know, that need to be followed. So for example, everyone has an equal voice in the room. So there's no hippo per se in the room, even though you might have the CEO sitting in the room, the CEO isn't the loudest voice in the room. So that flips that a fair bit. So you've got that inclusive approach. You have to have the respect for each other. When one person is sharing their perspective, no one else speaks, so they have the time to, to share what they really think and feel. And the people that are listening need to be listening to understand, not listening to try and defend or respond. And if you do see as the facilitator or the coach, you do see someone trying to jump in and defend, you stop, you do stop that and you remind them. So I After a number of cycles of doing that, they understand the process and then they shift. And then you're asking them to ask clarifying questions, not questions that are loaded, right? Because you can tell, you can see where things are going. So yeah, it's a process and it's, it's a skill that can be learned and it's really, really useful. It changes the dynamic, it changes the environment, and people then feel that they are heard, which is really important from the belonging perspective.