Ruby Rawlinson

Nov 28 2016
Soder
Honors230
The basis of chapter five of The Language of Leadership is the
fact that things fall apart, and leaders must deal with the reconciliation
and reconstitution when this happens. Things fall apart in many
environments; from the public sphere to schools to the private sector.
For some problems, the causes can be uncontrollable, but for others
problems can occur when relationships between people fall apart.
Roger Soder outlines seven options for how leaders can respond when
this happens. First, they can do nothing. This could be because the
leader doesnt know what is happening, or perhaps, a leader is only
aware of some parts of his or her organization and is oblivious to the
sector that is having problems. The second option is to ignore the bad
situation. This option usually avoids using too much energy or
resources, however people can become frustrated with doing nothing
and this can cause them to reach a point where they react drastically
or rashly to a situation that they realize cannot be ignored any longer.
Thirdly, a person can justify and excuse breakdowns between people.
This can be in the form of consoling people and letting them know that
you understand their struggle which can foster connection, however
just this action alone does little to solve the root of the problem. The
fourth option is to fire people who are causing conflicts. The fifth is to
get revenge or get even. The sixth response is to acknowledge that
bad situation but keep the lid on through force, threats of force, or
forced cheerfulness. This can be in the form of signing mission
statements or objectives, or singing company songs. The last response
is to run from the bad situation. Wiebe identifies that this was easier in
early America when people had physical space, no threat of military
control, and a thriving economy.
For leaders to understand what response will be effective, they
must first understand what accounts for peoples falling out, and what
motivates them to move on. Soder outlines some motivations that
people have that lead to things falling apart. First, anger can cause
conflicts to escalate quickly and usually thwart any chance at
productive communication. Once resentment is established, it is
challenging to reconcile the relationship as people are usually unwilling
to comply with someone elses ideas if they dislike who the idea is
coming from. Ambition for oneself and for others can also get in the
way. Ambition can be detrimental to group efforts when one person is
comparing themselves to others and feels inadequate as it can cause
them to work for their own advancement instead of working towards
the groups goal. Ambition, anger, and grudges can in turn lead to

feuds. Leaders must be aware of negative motivations that can cause

problems early on in order to stop destruction from happening.
Leaders may take different approaches to reconciliation and
reconstitution. This can take place in both large-scale efforts as well as
individual to individual efforts. Large scale efforts include the aftermath
of the Civil War or the holocaust, and many approaches are debated.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu who worked on reconciliation in South Africa,
advocates for full reconciliation and full social harmony. David Crocker
alters this by proposing that social harmony must include the two
responsibilities of nonlethal coexistence and democratic reciprocity
meaning that there must be no violence, but also no forced
forgiveness. In his words there are unforgivable crimes...that a
government should not insist on or even encourage forgiveness, since
forgiveness is a matter for the victims to decide. Crocker also believes
that public deliberation is essential, as each group must be involved in
deciding the direction of the society, and all policies or trials decided
on must be accessible to the public.
I agree with David Crocker when he says that forgiveness must
not be forced on a previously tortured or suppressed group of people.
By making them do this, we, as a sociey, are belittling the hardships
that this group of people has undergone. This way of hastening the
normalization of society is insensitive to what people have gone
through. In a way, it is saying that peoples grieving is inconvenient to
society. For instance, you would never tell someone who lost their
grandmother to just get over it. As a leader, one has to be careful
that their plan for reconciliation does not insult the group of people
who have previously been undermined for two reasons. First, it is
ethically concerning to do this, and secondly no group of people will
willingly listen to a leader that acts this way.
Right now, it is not a secret that racial tension exists in America,
especially regarding police officers relations with civilians of different
races. Anger has surely blocked a productive conversation around this
issue. To move on from here, those who hold priviledge in this society
must be willing to listen to others stories. If we do not listen, no
progress will be made. I think that Crocker was correct when he
mentioned that a public deliberation is necessary. We cannot deny that
our history of racism plays a role in this situation.
Furthermore, I believe that rhetoric plays an important role in
how these issues are solved. We cannot think about clear solutions
unless our communication is clear. Many people have a counterargument to the Black Lives Matter movement, saying that All Lives
Matter, however I think that this exemplifies disrespect towards the

targeted group. Looking at the third option outlined by Soder, this is a

tactic to acknowledge the problem, yet has no impact on finding a
solution. This is another way of belittling the minorities emotions
associated with an issue. In the reconciliation of any problem, I think
that people must recognize what group they belong to; the oppressed
or the oppressor, and the only way to recover from a situation where
human rights are violated is for the oppressor be silent and here out
the oppressed completely before any action is taken.