Warning: Conflict ahead – embrace for impact

Although change is so often unavoidable, you usually get a choice about how to respond to it, even when your back’s against the wall. The problem is that options create opinions, and opinions create conflict. But although that’s an entirely healthy and necessary part of the decision-making process, I consistently find that ‘constructive conflict’ is one of the most common flaws in the leaders I coach.

Like most teams, Ben’s* was at full stretch just churning through the ‘business as usual’. So when he was told they would have to adopt new ways of working to align with other parts of the business ahead of a new IT system, something had to give. Paradoxically, efficiency initiatives usually require an increase in workload before they deliver their net-decrease, during which time lesser tasks must be done less, or not at all.

In my experience, prioritisation is a challenge for most leaders for a couple of reasons.

1) Leaders are generally ambitious and positive people who want to get stuff done. But prioritising can mean having to say ‘no’ to value-adding work, which feels defeatist.

2) Most people want to avoid conflict, because they think it’s always destructive. But that’s like thinking all failure is negative.

I grew up in a house of debate. I learned to understand other people’s ideas and positions by challenging them. Not always constructively, I admit – it’s a skill that requires maturity. But nonetheless a proposition would have to be validated in order to be accepted, and the more scrutiny it stood up to, the more I would support it. But that’s not the way Ben had been raised, and for him ‘constructive conflict’ was an oxymoron.

For him, prioritisation seemed to be the fastest way to upset his staff and stakeholders simultaneously. It was tantamount to admitting he’d been directing his team to do work that wasn’t worth doing, raising the question about whether he was a leader worth following.

So firstly, when he was preparing for the big prioritisation meeting with his team, I counselled him to get them to challenge the idea not the person. As soon as you depersonalise a debate, it’s much easier to remember you’re all on the same side, and it’s also easier to criticise. And secondly, I advocated what to some is the counter-intuitive approach of don’t aim to win the argument for yourself, win the best outcome for the team.

The first approach makes it not about them. The second makes it not about you. And then it can only be about the work.

These are simple tools that are quickly understood – in about the time it took you to read that paragraph in fact – but which take time, effort and practice to master. But even on their first outing with Ben’s team, his feedback was that they were a bit more challenging and open than they had been. And, most importantly, they managed to agree a few bits of work that could be stopped, ranging from some minor reporting through to cancelling their stand at an ineffective trade fair they attended every year out of habit.

Avoiding conflict is an easy option that also avoids optimal decision–making. Unconstructive conflict is also an easy option because all you have to do is give in to your primal instincts of fear, anger and zero-sum-game-survival.

But just by removing that small prefix of ‘un’, you turn your M.O. – and your performance – on its head. Constructive conflict gives you the best chance to make your best decision. And in a world that’s changing fast, that’s surely your only option these days.

*To protect client confidentiality, Ben is a fictitious amalgam of leaders I’ve worked with. The scenario is based on real events.

Rich Alderton offers Executive coaching, so if you're looking to take your business to the next level call us on 07873 823 800, email us or complete our enquiry form.

And why not download Rich's new e-book here?