In Tuesday’s post, I shared the experience of hearing fellow managers say “My library really needs to do [X], but my staff would never accept it.” To which I tended to respond (silently, in my head) “If you’re going to take a leader’s money, you need to be willing to do a leader’s work.”

That’s easy to say, of course. But what exactly is the important work that, as leaders, we’re sometimes tempted to avoid doing when dealing with recalcitrant or resistant staff? And how do we do it?

I have a few thoughts.

First of all, as I mentioned briefly in my previous post, in these situations leaders and managers always have to manage two countervailing temptations: to either exercise dictatorial power (“I’m in charge and you’ll do as I say”) or avoid conflict (“Oh, you don’t want to do [X]? Okay, you don’t have to”). Some of us are more inclined to take the power-move approach, and some of us are more inclined to try to appease – but both approaches are bad, for multiple reasons. These include:

Both approaches are lazy. Whether you’re wielding power arbitrarily or running away from conflict, you’re taking the easy way out and avoiding doing the actual work that leadership requires.

Both approaches are ineffective. You might be able to force someone to do your will in the short run, but forcing them to do it will lead them to do as little of what you want as possible, and probably also to look for ways to undermine you later. On the other hand, simply acceding to the wishes of recalcitrant staff might save you the pain of conflict in the short run, but it will radically undermine your ability to move the library in the direction you need it to go.

Both approaches increase staff dissatisfaction. Staff who are bullied will be unhappy with their leader; staff who see their leader letting himself be bullied will also be unhappy with their leader, because they will know that their leader can’t be relied upon to do the right thing in a difficult situation. Leaders whose goal is to make everyone happy will, invariably, end up making everyone unhappy.

Both approaches are selfish and put the wants of the leader above the needs of the organization. The leader who bosses people around is indulging her ego and/or her laziness rather than handling personnel in the way that will best help them and the organization; the leader who avoids conflict at all costs is indulging his desire for social comfort rather than doing the difficult work required to help bring resistant staff along.

So much for diagnosis. What, exactly, is the “leader’s work” that I believe leaders must do when it comes to recalcitrant or resistant staff?

I believe it consists primarily in these three things:

First, being willing to hear that you’re wrong. Because guess what: recalcitrant and resistant staff are not always wrong. They always – always – understand things about your library that you do not, and you ignore their perspectives at your peril. Before dismissing them as reactionary or reflexively rebellious, listen carefully to the content of their concerns and objections. (Of course, ideally you will have done this before setting out on a course of action anyway.) Analyze what they tell you on its merits, not based on whether it will be frustrating for you to have to stop or delay your plans. This kind of listening is some of the most difficult work that leaders are called upon to do. The expectation that they do this difficult work is one of the reasons leaders get paid more than the people they lead.

Second, being willing to absorb abuse. Change sometimes makes people angry, and sometimes for good reasons. Most people are able to control their anger and handle it professionally, but in my experience, every library contains at least one or two people who can’t (or won’t) behave professionally when they’re angry. Now, to be clear: abusive behavior, even by subordinates towards leaders, is never acceptable, and those who engage in such behavior need to be held accountable. But leaders can’t let the fear of being yelled at, or simply of making people unhappy, stop them from doing the right thing.

Third, being willing to do the difficult and sometimes time-intensive work of bringing people along. It takes no time at all, and very little effort, to say “Shut up and do what I tell you.” And it takes no time at all, and very little effort, to say “Never mind, I’m not going to make you change.” What may – and often does – take a lot of time and effort is the process that follows a conversation during which you say “I realize that this change is going to be very distressing to you. The change is necessary, and we have to do it. What can I do to help make this transition less difficult for you?” Note that this approach acknowledges two important things: both the necessity of the change in question, and the impact of the change on the person who is upset. It does not put the angry staff member in charge of whether change is going to happen, but it acknowledges the reality of his or her distress and signals the leader’s desire to help minimize the pain. It empowers the staff member (“Here’s how you can help me”), but leaves the leader in charge of organizational direction. It does not eliminate the conflict – the leader and the staff member still disagree and the disagreement is obvious – but it shifts the conversation to what can be done to help make things better. And it makes obvious the leader’s sincere concern for the wellbeing of the staff member.

The interpersonal problems that arise from implementing organizational change are among the most difficult, complex, and stress-inducing problems that a leader will ever deal with. But dealing with them effectively, fairly, and consistently is among the most important duties of a leader. And a leader who isn’t willing to undertake that work really isn’t a leader at all.