Growing up, I was always a fairly non-confrontational person. I didn’t like pressure, didn’t like conflict, and was happier letting situations I was less than happy with blow over rather than stirring the pot. As I grew into adulthood and into my career, however, I began to see conflict for the opportunity it could be, rather than the discomfort I had always shied away from.
In business sometimes we have a tendency to form Mutual Admiration Societies – we like our coworkers, we have a decent culture, and where no massive issue exists why should we try to create one? The problem with this line of thinking is the inevitable stagnation that follows it. When there is no pressure to improve, we don’t. Not because we don’t want to, but because we don’t know how. We are all limited by our own perspectives, and sometimes reality checks are exactly what we need to find the direction in which we need to grow. But those reality checks often come in the form of tough conversations. They can be garnered through feedback, which I wrote about previously, or they can come from conflict.
In the workplace, conflict often occurs when an issue is left to simmer for too long. If you dig into most Mutual Admiration Society workplaces you will find that things are often not as rosy as they seem, and there may very well be an elephant or five in the room that no one wants to be the first to bring up. When these issues are brought to the surface though, a new influx of productivity can be initiated in a way that hasn’t been seen in the organization for quite some time.
This is not to say all conflict is good conflict, though. A culture of challenging each other and honest constructive criticism can be a good thing, but it can conversely fall into its own pitfalls. Conflict for conflict’s sake is rarely productive. The same can be said for debates driven by emotion rather than logic; and even though many disagreements begin in a logical place, it is easy to fall into the trap of letting emotional testimony supersede the initial logical point. In this way getting into the wrong kind of dispute – or arguing for too long – can do more damage than if the issue was never brought to the forefront in the first place.
Like most things, it’s about trying to find balance. Conflict is not something to be afraid of – in many cases it should be embraced. But limiting arguments to facts and logical reasoning rather than emotionally charged subjectivity or worse, personal attacks, will mean that your debates will stay productive while the people on both sides still maintain mutual respect. And mutual respect, rather than mutual admiration, will take an organization far.
ProcessWorks™