A USEFUL PRESCRIPTION ON

FUTILE DISPUTES AND

DISAGREEMENTS

ARCHIMEDES CARAG ARTICULO, M.Phil.

Dean
College of Arts & Sciences
Cagayan State University
Philippines

Copyright 2009. For reprint permissions, contact the author at chitocsu@gmail.com.

For more articles, see http://www.acarticulo.blogspot.com

Harmony is an elusive dream for all organizations, because

discord is as natural as the life of the organization itself. We

sometimes find ourselves in disagreement with our colleagues, with

our subordinates and with our superiors.

However, disagreement is not, in itself, an evil to be avoided at

all cost. When it is validly grounded, disagreement could be a medium

that allows an organization to discover its strengths and weaknesses; it

could be a means to filter ideas - allowing the administration to

separate those that which are truly effective and those that which

must be discarded. It is a well established dictum that the way an

organization handles genuine disagreements is a sign and measure of

its maturity, and the indicator of its culture.

In this context, genuine and useful disputes must be welcomed

and properly utilized for the best interest of the organization.

HOWEVER, not all disagreements are based on valid grounds.

Most disputes in an organization find their shameless genesis on

hearsays nourished by the tongues of rabble-rousers, gossipers, and

1
trouble-makers. This is the type of dispute that does not only disturb,

but also devastate the very soul of the organization. It does not only

hurt feelings, but also causes gladiatorial relationships, distrust, and

deep frustration. Fostering futile disagreements is a sure way of

weakening and destroying an otherwise vibrant organization, of

devastating professional growth and self-fulfillment among employees.

The perpetuation of a culture which promotes futile disagreements

never fails to create disorder, hostility, and instability. It does not need

a professional statistician to say that the higher the incidence of futile

disputes occurring in an organization, the higher the probability that it

will fail in most of its endeavors. Futile dispute in an organization is a

sign and measure of its maturity, or lack of it.

In this context, groundless and futile disputes is an affliction that

the organization must avoid and must address properly. But how?

Like a physician, we begin with the identification of the cause of

the affliction.

Of all the possible reasons for futile disagreements, which are

too many that no single drug could cure, we console ourselves in

zeroing in to the most immoral of them all: Gossiping, which comes in

a variety of other names such as “apple-polishing”, “scandal-

mongering”, “tatletaling”, “rumor-mongering”, and “boot-licking”. The

gossip and their bearers are one of the root causes of the perennial

problem of miscommunication; done under the cloak of secrecy, it

never fails to ignite problems, and cause damage to relationships. The

victim of these story-tellers is seldom afforded with the opportunity to

clear his name, to tell his side of the story, and to be given the benefit

of the doubt. Sadly, futile disputes is usually nurtured by our own

inclination to bar honest confrontation and to close down the channels

2
of communication immediately after the lie-tellers deliver their

poisonous and malicious gossips.

Now, that we have a cause, how should we treat it? The

Epicureans, those famous Greek philosophers of the Ancient times,

have a prescription and they call it “Ataraxia”. The word refers to a

process of “suspending” one’s belief of something. But why should we

suspend our belief about something, if it is too sensational, luscious,

and convincing to be believable?

Everything, these Epicureans say, can always be explained in

two different and contradictory ways at any given point in time. Since

we are always confronted, at first glance, with two equally correct (and

wrong) answers, then, it is safer to suspend one’s judgment (as to

which to believe) until all things are properly well thought-out. Applied

in contemporary workplaces, it simply means that when we hear a

news or a story which we cannot, at the moment verify its accuracy,

then it is more prudent and professional to at least suspend, for the

time being, our judgment about it. Juicy stories should not get us too

excited to react without hearing the other available versions.

Here, we see that “ataraxia” is what most members of a

disgruntled organization need. In fact, what most of us need.

Because it seems that we are all too ready to speak, to judge, to

act imprudently. In our haste to judge, we always forget that

sometimes, we need to listen, to shut up, and to give others their turn,

their time and space, to speak. Ataraxia allows us to listen, to

understand, and to open up the channels of communication. It allows

us to live comfortably in the midst of people even those whose

credibility for truth we cannot personally vouch. And since “Ataraxia”

can kill the gossip, and can turn-off its bearer, it helps us expunge the

3
Culture of lies from the general life of our organization. It allows us,

and our organization to bring down walls that divide, and tame the

unseen forces that malign, hurt, and estrange employees from each

other.

However, like a bitter medicine, we need some motivation to

swallow this Epicurean prescription. Fortunately, we have one, and it is

this: If we allow miscommunication and bootlicking to become the

dominant ethos of our organization, then our great dreams and visions

for the future will all pass away unfulfilled. We may as well forsake

wishing for big things that no single effort could possibly realize

regardless of how inspired that may be.