What can we learn from the Gulf oil spill?

This week has been very interesting, between President Obama’s comments and Congress “grilling” BP CEO Tony Hayward over the Gulf oil disaster.  I don’t intend to get political here at all, but comment on the situation from a conflict management perspective.  An excellent summary of the situation comes from MSNBC’s H. Josef Hebert, whose column today begins:

Congress was given a chance to vent its frustrations. And BP’s top executive, the target of the rage, did what he hoped to do — deflect the most probing questions and avoid any serious gaffes.

While outrage filled the air, the much-awaited grilling of BP CEO Tony Hayward by a House of Representatives committee produced good theater but little new information about what caused the catastrophic oil spill that has wrought economic havoc and environmental devastation across the U.S. Gulf Coast region.

Listen to the list of conflict words used: vent, target, rage, deflect, probing, avoid, outrage, grilling.  Now consider the language that the President himself has chosen to use. First, he declared he was looking for “someone’s ass to kick.” In the first few seconds of his Oval Office speech this past Tuesday, he referenced “the battle we’re waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores.” A bit later on he stated, “We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes.  We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused.”

Almost universally, politicians of both political parties have done whatever they could to appear strong, tough, and in charge—the classic “director” posture. Only one dared take a different approach, and those of his own party were quick to turn on him, lest they, too, be seen as weak. And almost universally, those involved have engaged in finger-pointing, as if finding someone to blame would somehow solve the problem.

While all this may be wise from a political point of view (although the polls seem to disagree), how does this play from a problem-solving, conflict management perspective? For one thing, it is one more example of how pointing fingers takes the emphasis off the real problem and focuses instead on the parties. Agreeing on the problem and the need to find solutions should be the first step in problem-solving. There is plenty of time to point fingers once a plan is in place. Also, there are different ways of appearing strong and in control, if this is the politicians’ goal. You can hop around and beat your chest, or you can take charge and lead a problem-solving mission.  Collaboration is the strong thing to do, if collaboration is what is called for.

It seems to me that this situation makes it evident that there is a great need for leaders who understand how to problem-solve, and how to make conflict—inevitable in politics—productive. Do we have any mediators out there interested in running for office?