Arbitration: any lessons?

I love football (soccer) not only because it is the game I have played the most so far but also because it teaches us lots of lessons. The major lesson it teaches is one of my favourite subjects, teamwork.

There are several issues related to teamwork that one can pick up from a soccer game - whether as a player or simply as a spectator. Obviously there is more to learn about teamwork from the players than other participants in the game. In this post I pick on one aspect that could easily be missed since the lesson it teaches about teamwork is often blurred hence missed by many.

Any football fan following the latest games in Europe will at this point in time (time of posting) recall last night's leg of the European Champions League quarter final at Anfield in Liverpool, England. Liverpool FC were 4-2 victors over Arsenal FC (as judged by the arbiter). The Arsenal FC's manager, 'Professor' Arsene Wenger, attributed his team's exit form the competition to two poor decisions by the referees (arbiters) - one in each of the two legs. The result for the two legs is 5-3 in favour of Liverpool. That reminded me of the authority and sometimes flaws in arbitration with their associated consequences.

What has this got to do with teamwork? I believe that it is known to most (if not all) adults that in all teams there can be and actually there are conflicts. They should be expected and should not be feared. Patrick Lencioni in his book ("The five dysfunctions of a team") lists the fear of conflict as one of the dysfunctions of a team. A good team leader or team member must always expect conflicts to arise and most importantly know how to deal with them.

In my little knowledge of conflict resolution, I know that it could be a one stage process (with a good outcome) or a multistage process (that could sometimes have no good outcome for at least one of the parties).

Negotiation between the affected parties is recommended as the first step in conflict resolution. It is the one with the most promising long lasting outcome. Once this fails then third parties emerge hence reducing the chances and quality of acceptable outcomes.

The logical step following a failure in negotiation is seeking mediation. In this case the two affected parties will themselves decide and agree on an outcome without any influencing decisions from the mediator. The role of the mediator is to provide the environment for and moderation of the negotiation process. The affected parties make the decision. Should this fail, then the next logical step is arbitration.

In arbitration, the affected parties surrender their authority to arrive at a compromise decision to the arbiter. The two must now take whatever decision comes out of the arbitration process. In this case one party will always cry while the other rejoices - both cannot rejoice (at least not openly) as it may happen in the previous two steps.

That is not all. The fourth option is attempting none of the above thus outright disagreement between the affected parties. In this case, these parties can no longer work together as a team! I also believe that after arbitration, the chances of the affected parties working together (again) as a team is significantly reduced. How would you therefore choose to resolve conflict between team members? I am personally inclined to avoid the last two options - arbitration and outright disagreement.

So, what has this got to do with the soccer match referred to above?

The outcome of the alleged poor decisions by two different arbiters officiating in two different matches involving the same teams and played in two different locations in England within a space of one week strengthens my belief that arbitration may not necessarily please both parties. One referee denied Arsenal FC a seemingly genuine penalty in the first leg and one week later, in the second leg, another awarded a seemingly unconvincing penalty against Arsenal FC. Liverpool FC went away the rejoicing party while Arsenal FC cried on both occasions of arbitration supremacy.

Thanks to soccer for bringing out these lessons.

Do you love your country - how do you show it?

Some of you have traveled widely and have met quite a number of good people in the countries you have been to. Do you bother to find out from them or do they tell you why they are nice to you? The reason you got was probably different from what I got recently.

For the few times I have traveled, I have met a few people I have perceived as nice to me but did not ask them why they behaved so until recently. I met this genuinely nice African (in a multi-ethnic country) who gave me something to think about. This person was very kind. One can see this obvious fact a few minutes soon after interacting with this person so the personality factor was a given. I told them they were a rare kind of person in dealing with foreigners - a special kind heart. This person told me that they had the name of their country to protect. They did this sacrificially (or is it patriotically).

How many of us behave naturally well towards foreigners as an obligation to contribute ('2 cents') towards our country's good name / reputation.

Do you love your country? How do you show it to foreigners?

This reminds me of my country's motto, "For God and my country". Ugandans ought to, therefore, do all things for the glory of God and their country. What a tall order! I think Ugandans have always been nice to foreigners as a personal conviction largely based on cultural and religious obligation rather than patriotism. We ought to think again and add a third factor - our country.

Uganda Oyee!