Win the Battle; Skip the Rhetoric: A
Personal Testimony
Site
Member - May 28, 2015
The following message was posted at GaryNorth.com Non-Specific
Q&A Forum.
City Board Below is
some advice directly applicable to the office environment that comes from my
experience as an appointed city board member.
Situation:
I am on a local Board
of Adjustment which adjudicates variances and special exceptions to city
building ordinances. It is appointed and I receive no pay.
Last meeting, a
petitioner had most of his front yard paved with the exception of some very
nice landscape architecture surrounding. He is a grandfather who has a disabled
grandson in a wheelchair who stays with him a few days a week. The excess
paving is to allow a wheelchair accessible van to deposit him right at the
front door without having to navigate grass and narrow sidewalks. It is also to
give him a playspace since the local playground is inaccessible to him. The
rule broken was that only a certain percentage of the green space can be paved
and was exceeded in this case.
The petitioner is
allowed to present his case, followed by board questions, and then debate and
voting on the petition. My debate had a little rhetoric-- "... a foul
overreach of the nanny state..." The city planning bureaucrats and the
chairman were angry at this.
The board rejected
this petition on a 6-3 vote: 6 in favor and 3 opposed. Variances require a 2/3
majority to pass. As the yard was already paved, the owner will now have to
remove 19% of the paved area to be in compliance with the code or sue in civil
court.
Lessons Learned:
Logical arguments
aside during debate of which I made some, it occurred to me that it is not the
vote which angers the bureaucrats or board members with political aspirations--
it is the rhetoric. I could vote any way I please each month-- even if I were
the sole vote on one side of an issue-- and it would be no big deal if I said
nothing during debate.
Following a quote by
Hans von Seekt through William Lind, "The deed is the thing." From my
perspective, the vote is what matters-- not the intent, the words, or the
effort-- only the action. I wouldn't pay any more attention to someone else's rhetoric
than I would expect him to pay attention to mine. And yet this is flipped on
its head when dealing with people who care more for appearances and form than
substance.
What I should have
done (some of which I did):
Argued that the city
may be violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Argued that no licensed
civil engineer with a specialty in water resources performed a study showing
that the excess paving will adversely affect neighbors. Argued that this
situation constitutes a unique hardship and referenced the city attorney's
guidance on what constitutes a hardship. Questioned the city staff on who owns
the storm drains (obviously the city) when they argue that it is the
homeonwer's responsibility not to overload the storm drains in areas with
drainage problems. Questioned city staff on what sort of study was done on
drainage issues.
I'm not sure the
rhetoric was called for--but in this case I thought that the city
bureaucracy's actions were so egregious that it was warranted. I found that the
audience was smiling and nodding when I was talking. There was visible anger in
the room when the board rejected the petition. On the other hand, the rhetoric
may have pushed one or two board members to vote against me rather than the
petition.
Application to the
work environment:
If there is ever a
divisive issue that is going to be discussed by a group, do not participate in
the discussion. Lead or follow up with action. If you have information that
will shape the decision, share it with the manager in written form later on
without commentary-- facts only. If there is an action item, volunteer to take
on those with which you can shape the outcome. If you know the issue inside and
out before the meeting, share a factual descriptive summary before the meeting
to shape the discussion. If asked questions during the meeting, answer only
with facts.
If asked to speculate, offer only that there are several
possibilities and then get back to the facts. Remember, "The deed is the
thing."
If you have to
battle:
You may eventually
have to take a stand on a divisive issue-- but do so sparingly. You may have
lots of ammo-- but only a very few elephant bullets. When you do need to use
one, first put forth your logical arguments and then launch the rhetorical
salvo.
Colonel John Boyd said
that war is fought at three levels: the moral level, the mental level, and the
physical level. The moral level trumps the mental level and the mental level
trumps the physical / tactical level. You can win at the physical level but if
you lose at the moral level, you lose the war. This is so because even if
tactically superior, if you do not have the moral high ground, he will see you
as evil and will continue to fight you even if he knows he will lose in the
end. Make sure that when you go rhetorical or have to battle, you have the
moral high ground.
In this case, I lost
tactically with three votes opposed but should this turn into something bigger,
I think that the city council would not be happy to be known as having
appointed a board that "opposes accessibility for handicapped children in
private homes." My spidey sense tells me that the mayor would quietly tell
the city manager to never let this kind of code violation get tagged again. If
it goes to the newspapers, I have the moral high ground.
Also be aware that in
today's highly conflict-avoidant, passive-aggressive society (especially in
white-collar circles), most people have never really faced real opposition to
anything and won't know how to deal with it. They won't see it as opposition on
an issue but will see it as a direct confrontation. They will go immediately
into fight, flight, or freeze mode. The group will be shaken as they haven't
often seen a spectacle like this and are uncomfortable with the conflict or the
prospect of having to choose sides. Socially speaking, taking a principled
stand in our society is tantamount to being a social disruptor.
If you lose:
Be gracious to the
victor--don't seek or plot revenge. Just prepare for the next battle and get
on with your business. Be aware that even though your adversary has won, it may
have come at such a high cost that he will still be against you. In this case,
the city bureaucrats were publicly embarrassed and the chairman perceived a
threat to his authority or political future. And most importantly, make sure
that you can afford the price of being on the losing side.
Concluding:
Be aware of when to
take a stand or not in a divisive issue. Know when to use dialectic and when to
use rhetoric. Know that some types of people will be swayed by one and most
people by the other. And most importantly, make sure that you can afford to be
on the losing side if you take a stand.
