By ROBERT JUMPER
Tutiyi (Snowbird) and Clyde, N.C.
Our society has lost its ability to rationally and civilly disagree. I know. You are saying, “Well, duh.” But those of us who say that are likely to do so blindly and sheepishly. Because when we get emotional about an issue, the little bit of sociopath in us comes to the surface. We ignore our own behavior that demonstrates hate, while condemning those who demonstrate it, only from the opposing perspective.
Some are willing to beat you to death in the name of love. You hear them say, “We can disagree in love.” That has been demonstrated many times in Dinilawigi (Tribal Council). Folks will speak hatefully to each other, then say, “But you know that I love each one of you, and after we leave this room, we are brothers and sisters.”
But when they are confronted with disagreement about their positions, figuratively (and sometimes literally) knives are drawn from their pockets, and shoes are kicked off. They are ready to rumble, to borrow from Michael Buffer, the famous boxing announcer.
We, particularly in the most recent generation, seem to think everything is either for us or against us personally.
I recently had coffee with a friend who was sharing frustration about a coworker who neglected or ignored duties. Even when confronted, or mildly reminded, of their negligence, they absentmindedly chastised themselves by saying “I guess I should have done that” and then walked away, to the bewilderment and frustration of coworkers. However, instead of directly inquiring why those tasks are being half-done or being left undone, the people working around them just finish the tasks themselves.
Fear of conflict leads us to remain silent many times and “make do” in hopes that someday, somehow, things will get better. The type of work my friend is engaged in day-to-day doesn’t allow for things to be half-done, so they feel it is up to them to make sure those half-done tasks are completed so the work can continue uninterrupted.
But there are significant downsides to my friend’s solution. While it is indeed the path of least resistance, having to pause what they are doing to finish the work of another defeats the purpose of going the least resistance route. Effectively, you stop the progress of your own work to do someone else’s work. And even though my friend is kind and level-headed, you can bet that in the background, there is animosity or resentment that this person seems to have the time and understanding to know what they need to do, and they are just not doing it. Frustration rises. Productivity drops. A seed of hatred is planted.
So, I asked my friend if they had ever inquired of the coworker why they don’t finish the tasks that are daily presented to them. My friend’s response is typical of many people in leadership positions and others devoted to having a good work ethic in other areas of their professional and usually their personal lives. They said that it had been easier to just do the work so they could move forward rather than deal with the individual who was shirking their responsibilities.
This is just my opinion. I really feel like that is what the bulk of our society does now, and it is the source of some of the greatest conflicts in our society, whether that is on the Qualla Boundary or other communities surrounding us and extending beyond. We aren’t communicating. And when we run into anyone who looks like opposition to us, we go around them instead of asking any questions. And even when we ask questions, we are not listening for the answers. If you lived even a few years on this earth, you have either encountered people who ask you for your thoughts, then totally disregard or don’t hear when you respond, or you yourself have been somewhere else in your mind when someone was trying to explain something to you, and what they said meant nothing to you, because you weren’t really listening.
My friend admitted that they hadn’t really thought of trying to get that challenging person to talk about why they continue to leave tasks undone to the point that someone else must do it for them. It has always been my observation that when you start doing a task for someone else, who really hasn’t articulated a reason for not doing it, the likelihood of them ever going back to doing their complete work is remote. The logic is simple. If I am compensated the same for the work, whether I do it or it is done for me, then my choice is simple. In these later generations of our society, it is indeed rare when someone realizes that the work left undone becomes the burden for someone else.
Part of the challenge is that we tend to answer the questions we have within ourselves before we ever try to seek input from others. Have you ever heard the phrase, “I’d explain it to you, but I can see that your mind is already made up”? We almost instinctively make determinations based on internal opinions without seeking or waiting for information from others. We assume the why is based on the behavior. And we may even do it subconsciously. When my friend described this coworker’s behavior and my friend’s response to it, the response came from their previous experiences, and, automatically, they or others would “pick up the slack” for the challenging coworker. While the work was completed, there were resulting feelings of defeat, resentment, and hostility. And the source of the challenge, the challenging coworker, was likely oblivious to the feelings created by their actions.
We must take time to ask the right questions and intentionally listen to the responses. My mother used to say, “God gave us two ears and one mouth, so we should listen twice as much as we speak.” This is the same mother who taught me that some people “talk just to hear their heads roar”. Both are truths of our generation, so we must learn to discern. Stephen Covey, who wrote “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People”, said, “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
When you watch a session of Dinilawigi, spend some time listening, really listening, to what is going on. Many times, you will hear impassioned pleas at the podium from people who have resolutions or ordinances before Dinilawigi. There may even be some empathy expressed for the request. But somehow, when the vote is taken, the resolution or ordinance is defeated. In those situations, you are likely to hear one or more parties say, “In the meeting we had yesterday…” or “As we discussed before we were on air…”. You see, minds may be made up long before anyone steps to the podium to make their case during the session. Now, the author of the legislation may or may not have been a party to the previous meeting, but based on their expressions, one could infer that they had not, and some say so outright. Listening to the pleas at the podium, in this case, would be about listening to respond, not listening to understand.
I advised my friend that a possible course of action would be to confront that coworker the next time they let an assigned task get backlogged. When they say, “I guess I should have done that,” my friend should use that as their opening. Respond with, “Yes, that would have been the thing to do, so why didn’t that happen?” It just might open a dialogue that would make my friend and their coworker understand each other better and potentially move them to a more efficient, effective, productive relationship.
