Mind The Gap

The final report of the Cambridge Review Committee investigating the confrontation between Prof. Gates and Sergeant Crowley has been released.  I am excited because it is full of lessons in constructive conflict management, not only for relations between police officers and citizens of the communities they serve, but for all of us as we navigate through the conflicts of our daily lives.

In case you have forgotten and missed the recent stories in the news, allow me to refresh your memory.  Last summer in July for two weeks, the attention of the nation was drawn by the media to an incident in Cambridge, Mass. involving Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., one of the most respected African-American scholars in the U.S.A., and a respected 11-year veteran Cambridge police officer, Sergeant James Crowley, who had been called by a neighbor to the Gates home to investigate a possible break in called in by a neighbor.   The short meeting between the two rapidly escalated, resulting in Prof. Gates accusing Sergeant Crowley of racist behavior and Prof. Gates being arrested in his front yard for disorderly public conduct six minutes after the start of the confrontation.  Days later the charges were dropped.  Two weeks after the incident, both men were invited to the White House, where President Obama and Vice-President Biden, sought to facilitate their reconciliation.

The Review Committee stated that the July 16th incident could have been avoided and that both men “missed opportunities to ‘ratchet down’ the situation and end it peacefully.”  The report cites misunderstandings, failed communications, and feelings of fear each of the other.  But the committee members then state that once Prof. Gates provided his identification and Sgt. Crowley explained his reason for being there, “the potential threat was diminished, and the behavior of both should have begun to change.”  But instead the conflict escalated.  Why?  How could two mature, respected, intelligent individuals have chosen escalation after the point at which most reasonable people would agree that any perception of threat should have disappeared?

I agree with the analysis of Aaron David Miller of the Harvard Negotiation Project set out in Appendix D to the Report. Very early in the confrontation, neither had any reason to fear for his physical safety.  Yet, it is quite possible that both men experienced an “identity quake” because each perceived that the basic premises that define his identity were questioned. The report notes that “Professor Gates may have been reacting to a perceived threat to his privacy and to his dignity as an African-American man and an accomplished scholar, while Sergeant Crowley may have reacted to a perceived threat to his status as a law enforcement officer, played out in front of his coworkers, his subordinates and the general public.” (Appendix D, p. 58-59.) Verbal assaults on the foundations of our egos can produce a highly emotional and aggressive response.  As a former trial lawyer, I speak from personal experience.

So what’s a man (or woman?) to do when his identity is shaken?  At our transformational leadership workshops, we evoke the memory of boarding a train in the London Tube (subway) as a man’s voice with that wonderfully proper British accent says, “Mind the Gap,” reminding you to avoid the gap between the platform and the train.  To “Mind the Gap” at the onset of an “identity quake,” pay attention to the space between stimulus and response.  In that space is the power to choose your response to whatever is being thrown at you.  The key is to sense the emotional heat rising and deliberately choose to occupy that space instead of giving into the rising tide of emotion.  It is indeed as the report suggests like stepping briefly outside of yourself or, stated another way, it is choosing to be reflective or more self aware for the few moments it takes to reassert self-control and choose a more measured response.  

In that moment, two things can happen that are essential to conflict de-escalation.  You are able to see that your ego need not be so fragile and at the same time you are more able to see the situation from the perspective of the other.  Standing in the shoes of “the other” you are better able to communicate effectively to create increased understanding and defuse the situation.  But only if you “Mind the Gap.”