Purpose

Sensemaking is the difficult art which lies at the heart of academia. Academics bring their own ways of examining and explaining things they see. A key challenge for Carrie is how to make sense of complex and challenging situations, recognize available solutions, choose the best path moving forward, and convey all of the above to the different stakeholders, in a clear and compelling manner. According to Bolman and Gallos (2011), sensemaking involves three steps: (1) noticing something, (2) deciding what to make of it and (3) deciding what to do about it. Humans are known to be good at all three of these steps. In fact, we do it so automatically, all the time, that we often tend to overlook some important aspects of this process.

Design/methodology/approach

Academics in colleges and universities attain levels of autonomy and collective power beyond employees in most other industries, which not only create challenges for administrators but also for colleagues who find themselves in conflict with one another. This chapter chronicles a composite scenario describing a conflict between two scholars, Carrie and Paul. Weick's sensemaking framework and Argyris and Schön's organizational learning framework illustrate how Carrie made sense of and learned from a situation which remains all too common in higher education. Bolman and Gallos's four learning routines provide some resolutions to Carrie's dilemma. The most important lesson to take from Carrie's conversation with Paul is not whether the conversation went well or not. In many ways, we are always moving toward what is real, or what Popper calls “closer to the truth” when we are unable to see our destination clearly.

Findings

The authors, Bolman and Gallos (2011), recommend that we use a two-sided case with the same format that Carrie used, when dealing with difficult situation. One side reflects what was said (or anticipated conversation) and the responses (or anticipated responses; or how you think they will respond) on the left column and, on the right column, your unspoken thoughts (what you were thinking but did not say). According to the authors, if one subscribes to this practice, one would gain greater clarity with respect to one's strengths, comfort zones and flat spots. The two-sided model is low-risk and it enables one to visualize one's intended strategies, how one speaks to one's colleague and the possible consequences. The model can also let one know how optimistic or pessimistic one is about the situation. Knowing our position in advance may help us to develop and practice new strategies, which may also assist in building confidence and communication skills.

Practical implications

To conclude, interpersonal skills are central to good communication but, in higher education, interpersonal skills are insufficient. Often, when relationships among colleagues go awry, it is because they know what they intend but they do not know what they did to have contributed to unsatisfactory outcomes. As a result, it is easier to point fingers at others than to reflect and learn from one's mistakes. The ones who succeed are those who are persistent and proactive in reflecting on their behaviour and in learning from those around them. Furthermore, they seek feedback from their colleagues, put their assumptions to the test, work on balancing advocacy and inquiry, and learn about the pattern of their daily practice.

Originality/value

This chapter/paper chronicles a composite scenario describing a conflict between two scholars, Carrie and Paul. The most important lesson to take from Carrie's conversation with Paul is not whether the conversation went well or not. In many ways, we are always moving toward what is real, or what Popper calls “closer to the truth” when we are unable to see our destination clearly.

中文翻译：

---

理解冲突：教育领导者的案例研究

目的

意义建构是学术界核心的一门难学的艺术。学者们用他们自己的方式来检查和解释他们所看到的事物。Carrie 面临的一个关键挑战是如何理解复杂和具有挑战性的情况，识别可用的解决方案，选择前进的最佳路径，并以清晰和令人信服的方式将上述所有内容传达给不同的利益相关者。根据 Bolman 和 Gallos (2011) 的说法，意义建构包括三个步骤：(1) 注意到某事，(2) 决定如何理解它，以及 (3) 决定如何处理它。众所周知，人类擅长所有这三个步骤。事实上，我们总是那么自动地做这件事，以至于我们经常忽略这个过程的一些重要方面。

设计/方法/方法

学院和大学的学者获得了超越大多数其他行业员工的自主权和集体权力，这不仅给管理人员带来了挑战，也给发现彼此冲突的同事带来了挑战。本章记录了一个复合场景，描述了两位学者 Carrie 和 Paul 之间的冲突。Weick 的意义构建框架以及 Argyris 和 Schön 的组织学习框架说明了 Carrie 如何理解高等教育中仍然非常普遍的情况并从中学习。Bolman 和 Gallos 的四个学习例程为 Carrie 的困境提供了一些解决方案。从嘉莉与保罗的谈话中学到的最重要的一课不是谈话是否顺利。在很多方面，我们总是朝着真实的方向前进，

发现

作者 Bolman 和 Gallos (2011) 建议我们在处理困难情况时使用与 Carrie 使用的格式相同的双面案例。一侧反映说了什么（或预期的对话）和反应（或预期的反应；或你认为他们会如何反应）在左边一栏，在右边一栏反映你未说出口的想法（你在想什么但没有说） ）。根据作者的说法，如果一个人接受这种做法，就会更加清楚自己的优势、舒适区和平坦点。双边模型是低风险的，它使人们能够想象自己的预期策略、与同事交谈的方式以及可能的后果。该模型还可以让人们知道人们对情况的乐观或悲观程度。

实际影响

总而言之，人际交往能力是良好沟通的核心，但在高等教育中，人际交往能力是不够的。通常，当同事之间的关系出现问题时，是因为他们知道自己的意图，但不知道自己做了什么导致了不令人满意的结果。因此，指责别人比反思和从错误中吸取教训要容易得多。成功者是那些坚持并主动反思自己的行为并向周围人学习的人。此外，他们寻求同事的反馈，检验他们的假设，努力平衡倡导和探究，并了解他们的日常实践模式。

原创性/价值

本章/论文记录了描述两位学者 Carrie 和 Paul 之间冲突的复合场景。从嘉莉与保罗的谈话中学到的最重要的一课不是谈话是否顺利。在很多方面，当我们无法清楚地看到我们的目的地时，我们总是朝着真实的，或者波普尔所说的“更接近真相”的方向前进。