It always surprises me that some professionals in this world have still failed to master even the most rudimentary of diplomatic skills. Sure, they seem as if they can navigate through their respective professional spheres quite well – somehow even excelling and being promoted to positions of some authority where they must deal with sensitive issues of all shapes and sizes from colleagues and employees of all shapes and sizes. However, even after years of experience, when seemingly challenged – they immediately fall apart, get defensive, and resort to scare tactics and ultimatums unbecoming of individuals in such a positions.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary the everyday definition of diplomacy is as follows:
2 skill and tact in dealing with people.
Wikipedia further eluciates:
In an informal or social sense, diplomacy is the employment of tact to gain strategic advantage or to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge, one set of tools being the phrasing of statements in a non-confrontational, or polite manner.
Using absolutes, making immediate demands of the other party and/or generally ignoring or not responding to concerns is not the way to be diplomatic – and yet – so many in power resort to these behaviours, especially when they feel they are being personally threatened or challenged. The “you are either with us or against us” mantra that is sadly becoming ever more prevalent in international relations.
Even if the other party is making what they may view as outrageous demands or acting in a less than diplomatic manner – we all know 2 wrongs don’t make a right. But when a reasoned argument is not only refused, but simply not acknowledged – it calls into question the reasoning of the other party. Surely they realize that with these scare tactics they may possibly achieve their desired goals - but only with the loss of respect from the other party. It also calls into question how the superior ever rose to such a position if this is the way they deal with conflict.
Rather than divorce themselves from the conflict and look at it with an overall diplomatic eye (which in the end will only help them get to their desired outcome) – they add fuel to the fire by ignoring common courtesy and shutting down dialogue.
I for one would never want to defend my profession – whether chosen or temporary with such behaviour. Who’s with me?
t-square.