I'd like to preface this by saying that these are, in essence, little more than assorted musings about connections that I see between my area of professional study (social psychology) and the current ASO lockout situation. To be clear, I'm speaking as a newly minted ASOC member who just happens to have some background in many things psychological - not as any sort of formal expert . As this frustrating situation unfolds, these are things that come to mind.
1. Interpersonal relationships - particularly long-term ones - necessitate trust. It's a cornerstone of successful partnerships, be they platonic, romantic, or business-related. Take away that trust, and you end up with suspicion, and often-times irreparable schisms in the relationship (whether it is between individuals or at the group level). Trust, once violated, is very hard to re-establish. Employing tactics that violate trust (e.g., locking out musicians instead of continuing to negotiate) in hopes of short-term gain can do great, lasting damage to inter-group relations moving forward.
2. We (humans, as well as other animals, for that matter) learn quickly in response to punishment. Cutting resources, undermining creative efforts, etc. "teaches" individuals, pretty quickly, that they should not trust or rely on the other party. Sowing distrust and discord has implications for the nature of inter-group relations further down the road.
3. Conflicts arise. Getting through them requires humility, understanding, and good-faith negotiation: putting the ultimate goal above privately held desires. I was somewhat encouraged to read the memo sent out by an ASO board member to his colleagues early this week, which was essentially a call to action to try to get the music going again. Putting out an ultimate goal clearly does not solve things outright; but it does remind everyone that there is common ground, a shared sense of the importance of that ultimate goal. Getting to the goal means sacrifices and concessions, on both sides - but getting priorities straight is important also. Both sides in this conflict should work from the premise that a world-class orchestra is in place. World-class can be defined by an actual, objective measure, e.g., the number of Grammy's is one measure). To reach the ultimate goal, we start from the definition of 'world-class orchestra' and explore how to reach and maintain it. Losing sight of the ultimate goal, and allowing self-interest to interfere with the ability to work on a resolution together, is a hallmark of dysfunction.
4. Negotiating involves some degree of empathy. We differ in how we see the world. Past experience, individual and group identity, etc. can color our view of the issue at hand. Is it possible to work through and resolve a disagreement between individuals, groups, organizations, or nations? Helping each party see things from the other side of the dispute might sound obvious, but is the best way to accomplish this. Meeting and discussing those points on which opinions differ is important in the search for common ground. If you don't meet to discuss, you are (in this case, literally) slamming the door on the possibility of reaching an amicable, mutually agreed-upon solution.
5. Psychologically: slighting and undermining someone stresses them out. This can have mental, emotional, and even physical effects. There's a wealth of research linking stress to negative physical and psychological outcomes. Add in financial impacts and you have a recipe for stress, fatigue, and even physical and emotional exhaustion. This is not healthy for individuals, and certainly not good for a performance-oriented organization that relies primarily on the fruits of the performers' labors. People who are not healthy do not perform at their best. The longer a person is under stress, the worse the physical and psychological effects. Something like a lengthy lockout is therefore troubling not only in the immediate future, but also in terms of the time it is likely to take for an individual (or group) to get back to fighting form. Again, problematic in both the short- and long-term.
6. Banding together helps. In times of stress, knowing that others: 1) know what you're going through, and 2) have your back, is very important. Whether the support comes from family, friends, fellow musicians, or the public at large. Feeling that you aren't alone in the midst of turmoil can buffer against a lot of the negative effects of stress. Not to mention that, pragmatically, a unified group of voices carries further and wider than isolated individuals. Both in the sense of easing psychological stress on individuals and of turning up the volume and impact of a group's message: more is generally better.
7. Making sure that facts come out is crucial at a time like this, when slants and biases are flying around. It can be very easy for the average member of the public to pick up on one side's message and absorb it as gospel. Also, it can be tricky for members of the public who care enough to seek out the truth to know where to turn, and what information to trust.
8. A final thought about reaching and motivating the average person. We have a responsibility to explain to people, who may not feel like this conflict is relevant to them, just how relevant the conflict is to them, and those they care about. We all know that public support can be a powerful force for change. In order to drum up and capitalize on that support, we need to take this message to the public. As someone who studies attitude change and persuasion, I'd argue that, beyond saying that a particular thing is "good for" the city, the region, youth, etc. (which it certainly is), we should think carefully about how to get the message to resonate with individuals on a personal level. Making this fight and this issue something of personal relevance vastly increases the likelihood that people will be motivated to read about it, speak up about it, donate, contact others - in other words: do something. Overcoming the inertia of inaction starts with hitting people where they live in terms of messaging. If people come to recognize that an issue is personally relevant, they tend to be motivated to get informed, form an opinion, and translate that opinion into action.
I don't know that any of this moves us closer to solving the problem, but it still felt good to write.
Hopefully it's at least a little food for thought.
Jess Barber
Sop II, #404
Thank you so much, Jess, for your insightful comments. If only the powers that be (Virginia Hepner, Stanley, and the rest of the WAC's negotiating committee) would give careful consideration to each of your points above, there might be some chance of reaching a resolution before any more damage is done. As it is, I fear the WAC side is shooting us in the foot with all the ill-considered and counter-productive moves they have made so far. Each passing day of rancorous inaction will make it that much harder to regain the trust and support of patrons and donors, to say nothing of the players and singers.
ReplyDelete