In his first year of university, Jack joined a subcommittee under his faculty's student leaders club. He had high hopes when he joined it, wanting to organise various activities for his fellow schoolmates, and proving his own worth in the process. As time went on however, he realised that his boss,Matt, the director of sports, looked upon him as worthless and did not entrust him with any important tasks, only letting him do menial tasks such as lugging stuff around. At first, he did not know what was going on, and simply complied with the requests. However, he soon realised what was going on, but decided not to confront Matt about it. Instead, he spoke of these to the other people in the committee, trying to influence them against Matt. He succeeded in persuading around half of them, leading to a split within the committee.
Things came to a head when during a camp which was organised by the committee, the two of them argued in public about the decisions both have made in the past, which almost came to blows. All the dislike and criticisms which both had came spewing out, and both parties had to be separated by their allies. Needless to say, the tension within the committee came to a boiling point and stopped functioning. Subsequent events organised by them failed terribly, and everyone was criticised.
The two involved laid the blame on each other, and even till now the problem has not been resolved, with each side still not talking to the other
My question is: Were what Matt and Jack did correct? What could either one, or both have done to resolve the problem before it blew up in the face?
Sup Jake,
ReplyDeleteIt was an interesting conflict, a pretty common one I think too.
I think Jack should have directly went straight up to Matt to speak with him on the matter, and not get anybody else involve in the conflict. That is personal responsibility and COURAGE. Jack needs to face his greatest fears, that of which is facing either rejection of his points of view of grievances or getting a direct sack as a result of contending with Matt.
But I am not saying it will only end negatively, rather I am saying that the FEAR of the Jack's is the one that will hold him back in being a good interpersonal communicator. And when we fear, we usually fear about something negative, isnt it? Do we ever fear that we will get 100 marks for an exam? Of course not, because that doesnt make sence. Rather we fear we WOULDNT get close to 100 marks, isn't that right? We fear failure and this is the same fear that Jack, who presumably had, because he went to speak with other committee members and caused more trouble for himself than going straight to the root of the problem----which is his boss!
Once Jack can confront his greatest fears and master them, he will have a higher chance of succeeding and convincing Matt about his own worth in the committee. Because if he can conquer his fears, it would make sense he will be able to interact interpersonally with Matt and employ all the aces in professional communcation, and turn Matt to his point of view. Jack needs to to learn more about this sort of courage; while also learning that before he can 'conquer' and get Matt to listen to him for even only 1 percent, he needs to 'conquer' himself and his fears. And this fear is not as straightforward or easily managed as it seems, because such fears have very deep roots concerning BIGGER ISSUES/MALFUNCTION OF AND ABOUT LIFE AND LIVING. So it may follow that for Jack to make that first step to approach Matt or anybody else he has a conflict with in future, he needs to tackle a BIGGER AND MORE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE IN OTHER AREAS OF HIS LIFE. And this has almost always got to do with an issue of core values. And until he solves that bigger issue in his life, which only he knows and you and I have no idea what is, he will continue to struggle overcoming this fear of his in being personally responsible and involved in the conflict.
When I talk about Jack have bigger and more fundamental issues in his life that is affecting his ability to take full responsibility and approach a conflict with a person head-on rather than by the backdoor, I meant that Jack might probably be already weaned on hiding from something bad rather facing it in all honesty and courage, and so he naturally also does the same thing in other areas of life such as not wanting to face Matt directly!
WHile as for Matt, he doesnt need any advice, because if Jack can master himself, he will master Matt too. I do not intend to make this look like communication is about prey and predator or trying to master or overcome anybody, rather the more you try to overcoming or master somebody the more you fail. It is the same as the more you put effort and concentration into a module subject at NUS, it seems the worst you tend to score. The more you try to achieve, the more success distance away from you. Does anybody know this logic of life? Life is not about trying, overcoming, mastering; rather it is about going with the flow. While I urge Jack to master himself and therefore Matt, I am urging a sense of moderation in his approach. He mustnt try to overcome himself or Matt too hard, for he will fail; he mustn't totally ignore overcoming himself and Matt either, because he will also fail. He needs a fine balance. In other words he needs to master moderation when I asked him to overcome his fears in directly approaching Matt. If that happens, Matt doesnt need any advice, because Jack will be in cruise control all the while, and the same conversely.
CHeers
Thanks, Jake, for sharing this. It is very clear, concise, and well-described with fine story-telling. You set the stage for the conflict by providing a context, then describe the sad culimation. My only question relates to this statement in refernce to Jack: "...he soon realised what was going on...."
ReplyDeleteIt might have helped us readers empathize if we knew what he knew. What WAS going on?
There are a couple other sentences where language use is an issue:
a) Things came to a head when during a camp which was organised by the committee, the two of them argued in public about the decisions both have made in the past, which almost came to blows. >>>
Things came to a head when during a camp which was organised by the committee, Matt and Jack argued in public about the decisions both HAD made in the past. They almost came to blows.
b) Were what Matt and Jack did correct? >>>
WAS what Matt and Jack did correct?
I look forward to reading comment solutions from other members of your blogging group.
Hi Brad, thanks for the comments. As to your comments, when I wrote that Jack "soon realised what was going on...." I meant that he realised that Matt did trust him and generally saw him as being useless within the committee. Hope this clears up any misunderstandings. Cheers
ReplyDeleteJake
Hi Jake,
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that Jack is the victim here in this committee fall-out story. However I am not entirely sure WHY is Matt treating Jack this way. Did he just have an issue with Jack with no regard to merit?
Either ways, I would advise Jack against splitting the committee into 2 parties. If it is a problem between him and the boss, he should highlight this issue with Matt first and not rally people to his cause. If I were Matt, that would worsen the already bad impression I have of Jack.
Even if Jack had a group backing him, then as a group they should inform Matt about his issue with Jack and how it is affecting them. I would think that if Matt wants the events to be successful, he would at least try to reach a sort of compromise.
A very volatile situation indeed, nice story Jake!
Hi Jake!
ReplyDeleteSomehow this sounds a little like the story Brad shared with us in class!
I feel that Jack should not have made assumptions initially regarding Matt's attitude towards him and tried to influence the others in the committee against Matt.
Instead, he should have tried to ask the others about Matt's attitude to determine if Matt is really prejudiced against him. Even if Matt is really biased against him, Jack should have tried to resolve it personally with Matt and not cause a split and eventually dysfunctional committee.
On the other hand, the tension during the camp was definitely uncalled for, and could not be blamed entirely on Jack. I believe Matt do have a part to play as well.
Thanks for sharing the story Jake! I would say that it is a common conflict which many people experience but still cannot resolve when they are the parties involved!
Hwee Teng
@Greg:
ReplyDeleteHey Greg, the strange thing is, no one knows why Matt treated Jack like that. They didn't know each other before, and they weren't even in the same major! I guess its just like a 'love at first sight' thing, except that it was just intense dislike.
@Hwee Teng
Does it? Which one I can't seem to remember! =(
I agree that the situation in the camp was uncalled for. That quarrel set the tone for all future conflicts, and things just couldn't get done anymore.