Here's another quote from Dirk Schlimm:

“The genius, who sees opportunity with outside-the-box ideas, gets easily frustrated if he or she feels surrounded by others who only see obstacles. A powerful person with a big idea is likely to feel that he or she is right and will grow impatient with naysayers.”

This quote triggers some questions...

Do you know many people who think of themselves as innovative/creative thinkers? Do you know people who consider themselves out-of-the-box thinkers while you see them under dimmer lighting?

Do you know many people who get frustrated when other people inject obstacles? How do you feel when others naysay when you raise what you believe to be good ideas?

Spirited Leaders have a philosophy that can be summed up in 5 words: People Don't Like Receiving Criticism. We also say, "Constructive Criticism is an Oxymoron".

Now, we know some thick-skinned people can accept and respond well to criticism...for these rare few, constructive criticism is not an oxymoron. However, implicit in Dirk's quote, it is highly unlikely people who possess and exhibit a level of genius - powerful people - will respond well to naysaying. So, when you find yourself facing such a powerful person consider better strategies than voicing criticism that will likely be received poorly.

If you must voice criticism then plan its delivery carefully.

Dirk explains how this can be done in his book.

Some people possess a natural ability called Command. It is one of those natural-talent gifts. It provides a natural ability to magnetize, influence, and lead people.

But that natural ability can only be put to successful use if the talent of Command operates within 'fair' boundaries. And ‘fairness’ is an extremely subjective thing.

People have a very broad range of views about what is ‘fair’ in the area of Command and leadership. For example, Napoleon Bonaparte was either one of the greatest leaders of all time or he was the Antichrist. It all depends on your definition of ‘fairness’ [often moral fairness] as it relates to leadership. Most people have trouble seeing both sides of the argument and seeing both sides, of course, is essential if we are to truly understand let alone appreciate great leadership.

As a rule - With great strengths come great weaknesses.

Often, the most gifted leaders possess great flaws. If we choose to judge leaders by focusing on their flaws then we can generally find material flaws, deliver our harsh judgments, and diminish [at least in our minds] the truly gifted contributions of the leaders. Aside from satisfying our troubled egos, what good does that do? In my view, that delivers no value and misses the reality of leadership.

Leadership isn’t about perfection.

Leadership is about forerunning human excellence, with specific directions in mind and in action.

Leadership is about inspiring people and influencing people to follow.

PS: Napoleon Bonaparte is one of my heroes.

Are you better off following prescribed step-by-step conflict resolution processes designed by 'the experts' or drawing on your innate talents to resolve conflicts? Perhaps, for some people, there is merit in using someone else's detailed approach. However, how often have you seen that work in real life situations?

We should draw on our innate talents to resolve conflicts.

I have never seen canned processes for conflict resolution work in real life situation. We cannot be someone else so what would cause us to think we could use someone else's approach to conflict resolution? To the extent we find ourselves in situations of conflict we know we are at least partially responsible for our predicament [if not fully responsible]. We didn't follow someone else's steps when we walked our way into the conflict situation...so, we should not expect to be able to follow someone else's logical steps to find our way out of the conflict situation.

Often, we find ourselves in situations of conflict because:

1. we lack self-confidence and, as a result of that, we behave either too timidly or too aggressively and

2. we are too lazy to figure out how to avoid conflict or nip conflict in the bud when we know it has commenced.

We are too tolerant of conflict.

Some people even promote conflict in the workplace because they view it as a good, healthy, and productive way to communicate, make decisions, and delegate tasks.

That's interesting in many negative directions!

The results conflict promoters achieve at their businesses prove it is a high-risk-low-reward strategy. If that strategy ever worked it certainly has fallen out of vogue in recent decades. For example, under our Bill 168, we want people to feel secure at work. I expect Abraham Maslow would have supported this approach.

The reality is, some people – mostly people lacking self-confidence - either enjoy conflict with others or see it as a necessary component of work [and possibly life]. What can we expect from these die-hard conflict consumers and conflict distributors? Certainly, we cannot expect them to buy into following someone else's prescribed steps for conflict resolution. These people cannot follow such steps because they lack the innate talents required to avoid or resolve conflict.

And, if people possess the innate talents required to resolve conflicts then they can and should find their own natural ways to avoid and resolve conflict.

Either way, there is no need for experts to prescribe conflict resolution processes. These prescribed processes do not work because people either cannot follow them or do not need to follow them.

People need to understand themselves, work continuously at building and maintaining their self-confidence levels, educate themselves about innate talents and interpersonal interactions, and exercise self-control. These are the routes that lead to conflict avoidance and conflict resolution.