Fortunately, we won 4 schools and the remaining school yet to compete was a former second runner up. Thus, my former captain decided to forgo the match as he thought that we are not able to win and do not wish to expose our team's players to the opponent as we will still meet them in the finals. The Vice-captain and some of the members felt otherwise. When the Captain discussed with the rest about his idea, the conflict arose as the rest thought that the way the Captain delivered and phrased his words and tone do not sounded like he was open to any other ideas.
The Captain said, "We need not put our full force/team in for this match as we are entitled to enter the semi-finals. So the lineup would be..."
"I think we should fight and get first in our group no matter what, and why didn't you discuss with us the lineup for the last match?"
"Why is there a need to go all out when we are entering the semi-finals?"
It was, to the Vice-captain and some other members, more of informing them instead of discussing with them. There were a few bickering going on, but as both parties were firm with their stand, neither gave in. Finally the Captain raised his voice and said that there is a reason why there exist a Captain. That statement intensified the situation as it caused the rest to think that the Captain was using his authority to force his idea. However, as the Captain was alone, while the other group had more people, the idea of putting all the best players was adopted. The Captain felt very unhappy then and did not offer other suggestions for that day. He left after the competition without telling anyone.
I felt that the conflict arose because neither party explained their decision. The main reason could be that there was also an urgent need to submit the lineup to the organizers. The urgency could have caused the tension to escalate as both parties have opposing views and there was no time for a proper discussion. Hence, the way the Captain spoke could have agitated some of the members, leading the them to think negatively. It could also be that the Captain raised his voice because the "discussions" was going off track and he was just trying to get them back to the topic.
The problem was solved when the Captain, Vice-captain and some other members decided to meet up for a talk a few days after the end of the competition when they had calmed down. Both parties talked about their intentions and reasons behind their decision in a milder tone, and seek the other party to understand. The Captain apologized for raising his voice then. They came to an agreement of coming up with a few different lineups and asking the members to vote for the best lineup for subsequent matches. The Captain has two votes while the rest have one vote each. Since then, they were able to discuss things more easily as both their intentions were for the good of the team.
The problem was solved when the Captain, Vice-captain and some other members decided to meet up for a talk a few days after the end of the competition when they had calmed down. Both parties talked about their intentions and reasons behind their decision in a milder tone, and seek the other party to understand. The Captain apologized for raising his voice then. They came to an agreement of coming up with a few different lineups and asking the members to vote for the best lineup for subsequent matches. The Captain has two votes while the rest have one vote each. Since then, they were able to discuss things more easily as both their intentions were for the good of the team.
Therefore, in urgent situations or situations where opinions are conflicting, how does one ensure that the point that he/she makes is actually conveyed "nicely" to the other party?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThat's such an electrifying moment i believe! So dramatic, but with such a purpose behind it. Both sides had good intentions, but the inability to clarify their decisions calmly resulted in this conflict.
ReplyDeleteIn this context, when a decision has to be made quickly, I think the Captain should do a quick brief to his/her team explaining his/her point of view, and then a quick poll to gather the views of the majority. It might seem like it will take some time, but I'd think that beats bickering back and forth and making a decision that will affect the team adversely, don't you agree?
On a side note, my curiosity is piqued and I'd like to know whose side you were on!
PS: Apologies for the previous comment! Did not QC it properly.