Gambling with efficacy and transparency
I was writing up a leadership tutorial today, creating a mini-collection of the leadership methods I’ve learned from various sources — including mediation training — and put into practice in my work. As often is the case, my mind wandered into various related corners and so lead me to consider the benefits of a transparent approach to working with people in multiple contexts.
My focus was on training the volunteer leaders I work with to put into practice some of the same leadership skills I use working with them. I hadn’t been full conscious of the fact that to date I had not yet provided this information quite so transparently. Why? I work with very capable and experienced people. Perhaps it was a fear that revealing all of the ‘tricks up my sleeve’ would render them less effective.
This seems to be the flavor of conversations I’ve had with experienced and novice mediators regarding the benefits and pitfalls of varying degrees of transparency in the mediation room. Like in many of the situations I find myself in at work, I think the degree of transparency appropriate in the mediation room depends on the situation: the person, the content of the conversation, even the timing.
In this brief moment of clarity, I find that I am much more hopeful about the benefits of transparency in leadership than I realized. And I am eager to be more conscious about testing the waters of transparency in the mediation room — as well as in difficult conversations during which I get to employ some mediation magic.
I’m not certain that I’ll have a whole lot of opportunity to test the waters of transparency in my small claims work. But in other settings both professional and personal, I might find opportunities. And it’s something I’ll remain mindful of as I explore new venues to flex my mediation muscles.
Anyone have any resources to suggest for further study on the subject?
