Working Better, Together: Faculty Experts Help Groups Bridge Divides
From school to the workplace and pick-up basketball leagues to board game clubs, working in groups is a fact of life. But groups are composed of human beings and just as imperfect as their members. Conflicts arise, members hold different priorities, and expectations like trust and respect aren’t a given.
In many ways, these challenges are magnified on groups functioning in our public institutions. This is particularly evident on elected bodies, like boards of county commissioners, city councils, school boards, and similar groups. Members must work together across partisan and ideological divides, and party affiliation is no guarantee of agreement on the best way to address a thorny issue. These hard conversations also commonly take place in public and in open meetings, making members reluctant and uncertain of how to productively approach a challenging topic. When emotions run high and tempers flare, the results can damage working relationships and even cast doubt on the board’s ability to conduct its business.
“Most of us have experienced a new member joining a work group,” said Peg Carlson, UNC School of Government faculty member and director of the Center for Public Leadership and Governance (CPLG). “We might wonder: what will they be like? If I’m the new person, I might wonder: will my ideas and contributions be respected and valued? For elected boards, we see those same dynamics, but there are extra challenges. For example, a new member might have criticized incumbent board members during their campaign. Existing members may have a lot of assumptions about the new member and what they’re like before they even start serving on the board.”
Convening in our modern era can also contribute to these difficulties. The pandemic-driven rise in virtual meetings has reduced face-to-face contact, which diminishes opportunities to build relationships outside of official meetings or business. It may become more difficult for members to have interactions that pave the way for productive conversations on hard topics. Social media also allows individuals to keep each other at arm’s length or even remain anonymous, giving rise to the potential for combative or even hostile interactions. All these challenges can reduce a board’s efficacy.
“We expect boards to disagree on topics,” said School faculty member Lydian Altman. “It’s the way they handle that disagreement that is important. It influences people’s impressions of their governing boards. That’s one reason it is important that our boards set aside time to have frank and open conversations.”
For elected boards in North Carolina, this is where the School of Government can provide a critical lifeline. Faculty members like Carlson, Altman, and colleague John Stephens in CPLG hold expertise in helping groups learn to work together effectively and respectfully in pursuit of their broader goals of service to the community.
CPLG faculty often begin by diagnosing the current dynamics of a group. This often includes planning meetings with a subset of members who represent the wide diversity of thought and perspective within a board. These discussions allow groups to define where they are facing challenges, what outcomes they are seeking, and what success would look like for their time together. Common breakdowns might happen around role clarity (who does what and what are each person’s responsibilities), communication, and community direction.
CPLG’s role is not purely reactive. Faculty also work with boards preemptively to orient new members to the roles and responsibilities of a governing body, establish ground rules for how they want to work together, and help members learn more about their colleagues’ values and priorities.
“The period of time soon after elections is a great window for these topics,” Carlson said. “Doing that work upfront means disagreement later can focus on the substance and merit of an issue, not personal attacks. When we listen and maintain an open dialogue, we find common ground to build on.”
Faculty enter board retreats as content-neutral facilitators, or creators of “good containers for conversation,” as Altman said. This might include creating an achievable agenda, setting discussion guidelines, and developing shared definitions for important words.
“Facilitators help everyone focus on the substance of the conversation,” Stephens said. “I use the term ‘chauffer.’ Instead of one person in the back of the car saying where they want to go, the facilitator ensures the whole group decides together.”
During these conversations, Carlson hopes to help individuals understand that bumps in the road are natural when group members are getting to know each other. By reframing misunderstandings as a normal part of the group’s development, boards can break out of cycles of negativity and focus on shared values, goals, and norms. And in reducing time and energy spent on interpersonal conflicts, faculty hope to help public officials focus on more valuable topics they’ve identified as priorities.
“In conversations, respect is like oxygen,” Carlson said. “If it’s there, you don’t even think about it. But if it isn’t, that’s all you can think about. That missing component can make it hard to move on to address the actual needs of your community.”
In practice: tips for bridging divides in groups and teams
- Build personal connections: When we learn about who individuals are, what they value, and what they want for their communities, it is easier to find common ground later when disagreements arise. Meet with people outside of a single context (e.g. in the board room or at a meeting), like for lunch or a coffee, and talk about things other than work. When we look for commonalities, we also see our shared responsibility for the success of our group.
- Establish a process: Deciding how your group will work together lays the groundwork for achieving your common goals. This might include asking—and answering—questions like: what are our group values? What are the roles we each play in this group? How do we make decisions? What happens if we want to make a change? Who makes the final call? Establishing this shared understanding creates improved clarity for all group members.
- Summarize takeaways and agree on next steps: We sometimes neglect basic best practices when working in a group, which in turn hampers long-term effectiveness. Take the time to summarize each item at the end of a discussion and gain group agreement on what happens next. Asking questions about who is doing what item, how, and how they will report back sets the stage for subsequent meetings.
Looking for more resources? The Center for Public Leadership and Governance offers courses and services for both professional and elected officials lead and govern their organizations and communities. Browse below to see related courses, on-demand content, and other related services.
Upcoming live courses
Working Better Together as a Board
August 11, 2023
10 a.m. – 4 p.m.
Asheville
Emotional Intelligence: Your Key to Extraordinary Leadership
September 13, 2023
9 a.m. – 4 p.m.
Chapel Hill
On-demand content
Top 10 Primer: Managing Conflicts on Elected Boards
Other services
Retreat and meeting facilitation