Finding a Shared Reality [NIAAA]

By: Dr. Mark Rerick, CMAA

Of all the various duties required of athletic directors, engaging in difficult discussions is one that is both not enjoyable and unavoidable. Many of those difficult discussions take the form of conflict negotiations between various parties: athlete to athlete, athlete to coach, coach to parent, coach to self, or parent to self.

The difficulty in these discussions is that each party at the table has a different focus, different goals, and a different purpose for being involved in the program. Even the best athletic directors will not be able to guarantee that everyone is always moving in the same direction at the same time, so finding common ground between parties is an essential piece of hosting positive conversations. That common ground is called “shared reality.”

In a conflict, a shared reality consists of the philosophies, facts, and opinions that all parties involved both understand and agree on. The emotions that often accompany disagreements can make a shared reality hidden and difficult to find but uncovering it at the beginning of a negotiation (which is what many of these discussions truly are), is essential. By doing so, trust is built between parties, and a foundation is created for the conversation.

For instance, think about a parent trying to convince a young kid at home of a reasonable bedtime. Those discussions often begin like this:

Parent: “It’s time to go to bed. It’s a school night, and you need your sleep for tomorrow.”

Child: “But I’m not even tired, at all!”

For readers who are parents, we know that this is the beginning of a lengthy “Yes, you are,” “No, I’m not,” argument. The problem is that the starting point for each party in this discussion is absolutely true. The parent knows that the child needs sleep in order to function productively tomorrow, and the child believes that they are not tired (or, alternatively, recognizes they are tired but wants to finish doing whatever it is they’re currently doing).

Rather than starting from these opposing viewpoints, the parent needs to find some piece of shared reality that the child will agree with. In this case, it could be an understanding that in the past when the child stayed up late and awakened early, they were tired and did not feel well throughout the next day. Using that shared reality, the discussion about bedtime stops being about whether the child is tired or not, which the two parties disagree about, and starts being about how much sleep is needed to have a productive day tomorrow.

Now, consider the large number of similar conflicts that occur on a daily basis within our athletic programs.

- The athletic director setting an expenditure budget that provides the greatest benefits for the most teams vs. the coach whose spending requests were denied.

- The athletic director creating a structured progression within the communication chain vs. the parent who believes they need to immediately advocate for their kid.

- The coach who believes parents should be separate from the team and provide support from the sidelines vs. the parent who believes they are an essential part of the team’s decisions that impact their child.

- The parent who advocates for more playing time and/or a different role for their child vs. everyone else in the program.

In all of these cases, the obvious conflicts on the surface overshadow any common ground that might exist underneath. When disagreeing parties come to the discussion table with those opposing views as the starting point, the discussion will become nothing more than a war of attrition.

As the athletic director, you hold the ultimate power, decision-making capability, and final say, but simply flexing your administrative muscle to get your way will result in weakened relationships with your stakeholders. Rather than starting the discussion from these opposing viewpoints, it is well worth taking a few minutes to establish the shared reality first. By first working backwards to find everyone’s shared reality, you’re fostering the discussion in several important ways.

1. Through finding some common ground, everyone at the table can work towards a shared expectation.
2. Coming together to some level of agreement closes the distance between two opposing viewpoints and helps to create a shared purpose.
3. Allowing everyone at the meeting to voice their standpoint displays a sense of transparency about the process.
4. By creating transparency, the potential for silent misunderstandings is greatly reduced.

Unfortunately, it’s not as easy as simply saying, “We need to find our shared reality before talking.” Regardless of whether the discussion is with a parent, coach, or athlete, there is likely a high level of emotion and tension at the outset of the meeting. One important thing to remember is that neither party really wants to be in that meeting. The party that asked for the meeting is acting out of a sense of obligation for their own expectations, so while athletic directors want to view the people on the other side of the table as hostile, we must start from a place of assuming that everyone has good intent. With that mindset, we can move forward with the following set of actions to work from problem to potential resolution.

1. Start calm and stay calm. Remaining calm through the entire discussion not only sends a sense of safety to everyone involved, but it also diffuses the potential for emotional escalation to completely derail any potential progress.
2. Let the opposing party start by sharing their viewpoint. You’re in the meeting because the other party believes that you are out to harm them, so if you speak first, their assumption will be that you are trying to convince them of your correctness. Even if your intent is to calmly state facts or policies, the other party is likely to perceive your opening as an attack. Ask the other party for their perspective first and be sure to utilize active listening skills while they are speaking. To the parent who believes they should be able to go directly to the coach with problems, you might stay by saying something like, “I understand that you would like to discuss our communication guidelines. I want to learn your perspective as best as I can, so please tell me your perspective about this situation.”
3. Ask clarifying questions when needed but let the other party finish stating their perspective. After that, restate the opposing party’s viewpoint along with an acknowledgement of their emotions. This is the point in the conversation when administrators want to defend themselves or correct the other party, but the more important action is to validate the other’s perspective while aiming for a full understanding of their perception of the problem. To the angry parent, “If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re frustrated about our communication guidelines because X, Y, Z. Am I understanding that correctly, or does it sound like I’m still missing something?” Continue to ask questions and seek clarification until the other party agrees that you’ve fully heard them out.
4. At this point, you still will not state your position! Once you’ve heard the other party’s perspective, it’s time to dig down to find the shared reality. In the case of the angry parent, what are the shared goals, values, or concerns that can be used as the bridge between your needs and theirs? Finding this shared reality usually starts with “why” questions followed by a restatement of the underlying belief. For instance, if the angry parent hasn’t already said so, you may ask, “Why do you feel it’s important to be able to go directly to the coach with concerns?” What you’re looking for is the parent’s confirmation that they are focused on the well-being and safety of their child, or that they believe the power imbalance that exists between a coach and an athlete doesn’t encourage athletes to speak up, or some other similar sentiment. Once you get the other party to work down to values and beliefs, we can match those with our own values and beliefs.
5. Now is the time to present your facts, starting with the newly discovered shared reality. “I’m happy to hear that the power imbalance between coaches and athletes concerns you because that is an occurrence in the everyday adult world that also worries us when we think about the life of our students after graduation. Your concern about followers being able to approach leaders is a shared concern of ours. One of the mission goals of our school district is to prepare our students for success after graduation in whatever route they choose, and we recognize that self-advocacy is an important skill in the adult world. Our coaching staff, including Coach Smith, believes in creating safe environments for athletes to initiate discussions and ask questions, even when it’s difficult.” At this point, you could also state or confirm any applicable rules or policies that pertain to the situation, including why those policies exist and why you administer them the way you do. The importance of how you state your position lies in basing your statements in the shared reality you previously stated. While explaining this, you need to be careful to avoid being confrontational or acting defensively. You are not refuting or disagreeing with the other party’s stance; you are stating your stance within the confines of rules and regulations, always tying your statements back to the shared reality.
6. Once you’ve presented your stance, return the power in the conversation back to the other party. Ask them for their thoughts, responses, and reactions to the information you’ve just presented. Most likely, the other party will not agree with your perspective, and that’s fine. In the case of our angry parent, the parent may not believe that high school students are old enough to advocate for themselves, may not believe that Coach Smith has created a safe place for discussion, or may not believe that athletics is the place to teach life lessons. Again, in this step your job is not to disagree with their perspective. The other party’s perspective is just as valid as yours, so you do not want to invalidate their thoughts. Instead, allow them to respond so you can hear how the other party interprets your facts and to find those places where misalignment or misunderstandings still exist.
7. Now that both sides have heard each other, you can start working towards solutions. Remember, it’s not your job to convince the other party that you’re right and they’re wrong. You are focused on both parties’ interests, not both parties’ positions. The more you can help the other party get what they want, the more likely they are to help you get what you want. This stage could be started by statements such as “Now that we’ve both had a chance to process each other’s perspective, do you have any thoughts about a potential resolution that might meet both of our needs?” or “Now that you’ve explained it to me, I better understand your perspective and intent. How can we work together on this issue to both alleviate your concerns while also maintaining the value and goals within our athletic department?” Allowing the other party to propose potential solutions first helps them continue to feel heard and valued as part of the problem-solving process.
8. Although there may be some additional back-and-forth here, you should eventually work towards some level of resolution or next steps. In some cases, this may even be following what you were already doing with some small tweaks or additional accountability. In any case, before ending the meeting, all parties need to have clarity about what will happen next. All goals or future actions need to be clearly stated, time-bound, and mutually agreed upon. After the meeting, providing the other party with a copy of those steps further helps to hold everyone accountable.

This process clearly won’t be 100% effective 100% of the time. Culture continues to grow the importance of youth sports, which means everyone involved may approach the discussion with the assumption that the stakes are high. When stakes are high, emotions also tend to run high, and the other party may be too far gone in their beliefs or position to have a productive conversation. In these cases, act with an extreme amount of patience and work to find any small amount of agreement that can exist as your shared reality. Assuming you have remained calm for the whole meeting, it may be necessary to schedule a follow-up meeting if the other party is too emotionally escalated for rational discussion.

Treating contentious discussions as opportunities to create and confirm a shared reality among stakeholders will ultimately benefit everyone involved, particularly the athletes. The goal of any meeting among adults should not be to win an argument but rather to create a better overall experience for the athletes. Finding a shared reality is an excellent way to build relationships, find understanding, and promote positive growth and change within the athletic department.