Facing today’s need for much more constructive conflict
Photo: Sue RB
Many leaders, managers, supervisors, and employees have become conflict-averse. They shy away from conflict, feel uncomfortable about “going against the grain”, rocking the boat, or being perceived as a “trouble-maker” and not a “team player.”
Constructive conflict barely even exists in many organizations. Instead, the corporate culture demands an environment where “We’re one big, happy family” — where all are in agreement, always smiling and saying “yes”.
But if you’re not experiencing constructive conflict in your workplace, you’re most likely not making high-quality decisions; nor are you encouraging your colleagues to be committed to implementing the decisions you are making.
Much of today’s resistance to conflict has to do with folks who, when growing up, were subjected to consistent arguments and fights between people important to them. As a result, they grew to become fearful and scared when folks raised their voices in argument, dissent, and disagreement. Now, as adults, many still resist conflict. Often unconsciously, their childhood fears leak out in workplace situations wherever conflict arises.
They therefore do whatever they can to avoid conflict of any kind. They defer, stay quiet, accommodate others, and consistently nod in agreement. They “go along to get along.” They see conflict as bad and threatening. Avoiding conflict has become a knee-jerk reaction in much of our society.
Why constructive conflict matters
Constructive conflict isn’t only a requirement for optimizing the decision-making process. All leaders have a responsibility to foster dissent in the organization. Conflict is the genesis of creativity. It’s how you surface problems and sources of dissent before they cause worse to happen. It’s how you get people engaged. No conflict, no passion. All that ‘niceness’ leaves people feeling little or no interest in the outcome.
The purpose of fostering constructive conflict is to have everyone put all their cards on the table. Dissent, disagreements, any ambiguous feelings or thoughts inconsistent with the general view need to be out in the open. When conflict is constructive, people’s views and perspectives — regardless of their role or place in the hierarchy — are expressed fully. Their ideas can be refuted, disagreed with or countered — but they cannot be silenced or shut down. There’s a lot of noise, excitement, passion, and involvement, but nobody gets hurt.
Constructive conflict is open and non-judgmental for “the good of the order.” It focuses on ideas, not personalities. It allows for disagreement and follows ground rules for interacting that are mutually respectful. Constructive conflict fosters and encourages divergent and lateral thinking and varied perspectives. It typically takes place in a “living laboratory” where folks are learning how to engage in constructive conflict and learning about themselves in the process, so that is can be intentional about repairing any damaged relationships that may arise or result from the process.
How constructive conflict works
The most fundamental aspect of constructive conflict is to create a safe and trusting environment where all are heard, in order to enhance the decision-making process and garner buy-in and commitment from participants.
Conflict is fair where all are heard and all ideas are considered, even though not everyone may be satisfied with ultimate decision; and where it is open and transparent, holds people accountable for their role in the process, and supports relationship building and meaningful dialogue. When implemented appropriately, it fosters commitment and collaboration., and acts as a process to drive change where all parties are drivers, not passengers.
What happens when some folks prefer the status quo?
One strategy to involve resistant folks in constructive conflict is to allow them to be contrarian. You can encourage them to take an opposite viewpoint, to play devil’s advocate and speak to an issue from a different perspective. You can ask some to play the role of your competition and present a conflicting view that your competitors might take. You might ask others to explore “what if” scenarios, no matter how off the wall they are.
It’s important not only to include all necessary players in the decision-making process, but to be sure to cover all the bases, even though some people initially feel uncomfortable. No one should be made ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’. All are valuable contributors in creating a safe and trusting environment where folks can open up and say what’s on their mind without fearing ostracism, reprisal or personal criticism.
When faced with conflict, it’s important to be conscious of the dynamic that is playing out. Fear around conflict at work is most probably ‘old stuff’ that is coming up. Working on this fear
and resistance can help people move through it, understanding what it is and choosing to engage in the conflict without fear of reprisal or being physically or verbally hurt in some way.
Here are some questions for self-reflection on conflict and its uses:
- How do you, personally and professionally, feel about conflict? Why is that? What was your experience with conflict as you were growing up?
- Do you encourage others to be contrarian, to argue the opposing point of view? Are you open to divergent thinking? Do you ever take the “other side” to further a discussion or decision-making process?
- What is the culture in your organization, team or department around conflict? Does your organization provide training in conflict resolution?
- Does your need to achieve foster collaboration or conflict with others? Are you always an “I’m right” individual? Are you a good listener?
- Do you shy away from, avoid or resist conflict? Do you see conflict as an opportunity? When engaged in a conflict, are you able to separate personalities from issues?
- What was the latest conflict in which you were involved that was resolved constructively? What was your role?
Technorati Tags: handling conflict, dealing with opposing views, constructive conflict, decision-making, dealing with disagreement, listening to all sides, handling divergent views,
July 18th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
If people will not say what they feel and what they believe the team needs to hear; and if there is reluctance to openly communicate with each other, then the team will never benefit from the experience, insight and knowledge of the individuals within it.
If team members don’t say what they feel, then the team is missing out in so many different ways that it is almost impossible to comprehend.
The greatest problem is that lack of communication within any team or group situation is usually a reflection of a lack of trust within the team.
And as we know from what we have been taught and have witnessed first hand, without the element of trust within the team, you have a team with no foundation.
And with no true foundation, you really do not have a team.
Now I know this all sounds like a huge conclusion derived from the meagre fact that a team does not openly communicate, however without the presence of conflicting opinions, open discussions and opposing beliefs, there can appear to be (quite understandably, from the outside), a strong, united and harmonious team.
However, the reality is that nothing could be further from the truth.
With the absence of “real” communication the team actually is sitting on a false harmony.
And the reason there seems to be harmony is because no one will say what needs to be said for fear of upsetting the team or individuals within it.
Team members resort to agreement for the sake of harmony: they do not say what they think as they believe this is in the best interest of the team.
At most, their comments are guarded or worse, they do not say anything or contribute in any way.
They either know how the team will react or they do not know how the team will react. Either way the reason is simple. There is no trust.
They are reluctant to say what they think out of fear of how the team will react — because they know they will react.
Or they are reluctant to say what they feel because they don’t know how the team will react and they don’t trust them enough to just say it anyway.
The relationships within the team are not strong enough for the team to discuss or communicate certain things as to do so will create turmoil within the team or put strain on certain relationships, thus creating disunity and removing the “harmony”.
Once again, nothing could be further from the truth.
Harmony is great but not when it comes about because people hold back from saying what they think or believe to be in the best interest of the team.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
First, thank you, Peter, for starting a good discussion, and thank you, Bill for adding a great perspective. I want to piggyback on it.
What I frequently find in my consulting work — which is almost all devoted to helping build or rebuild trust — is that often people put the trust word up as a kind of gatekeeper on their participation. As in, “Well, I’d speak up except there isn’t trust,” with the implicit assumption that they are waiting for others to create that safety for them.
This is a heck of a conundrum. With leaders I often do talk a lot about their role in creating sufficient psychological safety and modeling openness so that others come into the conversation. But I also sense there’s an underlying misassumption about trust — that it is provided by others rather than created by certain leadership actions that are open to any of us.
Specifically, taking the risk to speak when others are still hesitant and not yet joining in.
Last year, I was asked to make a keynote speech at a conference at the University of Wisconsin-Madison about “what it would take to create a workplace that could handle the truth.” A great topic. Among other things, what I found in the actual presentation was a rather ironclad underlying belief among the couple hundred middle managers I spoke with that somehow trust comes first, then participation. I’ve wondered a lot about the impact of this belief.
I’d like us all — literally everybody– to think about that together. I want to learn more about this. Because if trust must come first, how indeed would it ever really happen? Doesn’t somebody have to begin the process of creating openness? Doesn’t someone have to say, “let me try?” Does that always have to be the person with more formal authority and power?
I’ll tell you my truth, which is that I don’t believe that it’s the first person to speak that is the whole answer. Yes, that person’s presence is essential. But even more so, I think it is — critically — the second person, and probably the third and fourth, too, along with fifth, sixth, seventh…and so on. Each one of us has the power to move a group through our participation, no matter where we are in the sequence. In fact, it may be the last person to speak, the one who hardly speaks up at all, that may really nail the change. You can’t call it simple responsibility; that’s too–simple. I do think we have to call it courage — courage in a line. It’s courage, I believe, that comes well before trust, not in its wake, as much courage in the last to speak as the first, and that’s the friggin’ key.
For it is important that awake people be awake,
or a breaking line may discourage them back to sleep;
the signals we give–yes or no, or maybe–
should be clear: the darkness around us is deep.
– William Stafford (from the poem, “A Ritual to Read to Each Other”)
July 19th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Hello Bill,
I appreciate your insightful comments. I think you’re spot on with the trust issue.
A thought or two:
What’s curious to me, in my experience, is that while many folks say they cannot trust other team members, or the team leader, or their manager, etc., for one reason (or excuse) or another, when asked to honestly reflect deeply on their lack of trust, often (not always, but very often) these same folks will admit that they themselves have been guilty of the same reason (or excuse) they project on to those they cannot trust. (The fault, dear Brutus, lies within…)…and that interferes with their trusting others…..
The notion of trust, as you say, Bill, is a major foundational element of a healthy team. The question of trust, for me, then begins with looking at my own story and history around trusting others and my being trusted.
False harmony is nothing more and nothing less than “collusion” – a type of fraud - where folks consciously or unconsciously, overtly or covertly, agree to “go along to get along” and not out the elephants in the room. The important question to ask here is “What is right about collusion?” The honest response(s) will indicate what next steps are needed. Collusion is a manifestation of a fear of some kind, or an ego need of some kind. Either way, the colluding parties agree to engage in silence and this silence is a major dysfunction that derails teams (and individuals). A good place for honest and sincere inquiry and exploration.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Hi, Dan,
Thanks so much for extending the conversation.
You say, “But I also sense there’s an underlying misassumption about trust — that it is provided by others rather than created by certain leadership actions that are open to any of us.”
Gandhi says, “Be the change you want to see in the world” – an invitation, as you suggest, that trust, in this case, begins with me….and here is also the opportunity to explore, inside, why I am reluctant to trust, if that’s the case, rather than look outward and play the blame game.
I agree that strength and courage are paramount to “opening up”, showing up and putting our self out there. Trust, as you suggest, is a by-product of action and behavior. There’s “trust” as a concept that doesn’t really provoke participation (although it’s nice to talk about) but one’s actual be-ing and do-ing in a sincere, honest, self-responsible and courageous way is the “secret sauce” that creates the safe container that allows others to speak up, and then others, and then others…and that is one way trust becomes the wrapper within folks feel comfortable, or not (and do it anyhow), to participate.
Good stuff and thanks Dan.
July 20th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Dan & Peter
Thank you for following on with the discussion and for the points you make.
Trust is created in many different ways but most of all it is a refelction of ourselves. Is what we are seeing a reflection of what we are putting out? In most cases the answer would be, yes.
And as you say Peter to get trust to where it needs to be it is important that you look at yourself first. However looking and seeing the truth in ones self are two different things therefore for the individaul to look at themselves and understand their role in the elements that produce trust they have to have a mirror that works.
From a leadership perspective trust is created, nurtured and developed through time and action, but most of all it is received based on two elements of person, these two elements are character and competence.
In a team situation everyone has to see it as their responsibility to move the levels of trust forward. And Dan you are completely correct it is not just about the first person that speaks it is the follow up by the second, third and so on that helps take the team get to where it needs to be.
But whose job is it to start that process? It can and should be everyones. Both individually and collectively.
July 21st, 2008 at 5:51 am
Hi, Bill,
You ask, “…But whose job is it to start that process?” Gandhi says, “Be the change you want to see.” Waiting for someone else to begin results in paralysis, stuckness and the status quo, with lots of underlying and overt or covert anger, resentment and blame that “nothing’s happening” or “nothing ever changes around here.” The intestinal courage to take action is what’s needed.