We all know leaders who run away when it comes to handling conflicting viewpoints across their teams. When the stakes are high and the conflict is intense, they can’t get away fast enough.
When there’s no escaping, they attempt to circumvent needed discussions with platitudes like these:
- Can’t we just agree to disagree? (Um, no. Where would that leave us?)
- How about focusing on what we have in common? (Why? We’d be missing an opportunity to learn how and why our perspectives are different.)
- Let’s not split hairs. (How about not trivializing our differences?)
- Let’s not make this a big deal. (Too late; it already is a big deal.)
- Don’t make this personal (When our differences are rooted in our values and beliefs, it’s already deeply personal.)
- How about we split the difference? (Between what, exactly?)
- Let’s just move to a vote. (Without a chance for a healthy debate, we’re not likely to buy into whatever decision we make.)
Why are leaders tempted to short-circuit conversations when people have conflicting viewpoints?
- They’re in a hurry. It takes time to hear each other out, and they feel they can’t afford to delay important decisions.
- They feel awkward. Not all leaders have the facilitation skills that can guide people safely when airing differences, especially when trying to reach high-stakes agreements.
- They’re blissfully unaware. They don’t realize that team members are operating under different assumptions or belief systems, in part because they don’t allocate time for in-depth conversations.
- They underestimate the depth of team members’ differences and want to believe that “everyone is really saying the same thing,” when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
Let’s look at a real-life example
A client team recently generated these ideas to attract urgently needed talent:
- Can we look beyond the usual colleges and associations?
- Let’s examine our job requirements to see if they’re really necessary
- Are we favoring some candidates over others, due to connections, degree, college, zip code, gender, name, career path, etc.?
- We need to revamp our interview process to make it more equitable
“We can’t lower our standards just to make someone in the DEI office happy. We’re known for our professionalism and expertise. All of these ideas put our reputation at risk. I’d rather be highly selective in our hiring process, even it means taking longer to staff up,” said Sarah, one team member.
“You seem to be making a lot of assumptions. The DEI office has nothing to do with this conversation. You’re implying that expanding our pool of qualified candidates would be ‘lowering our standards’ and that we’d be less selective in our hiring process instead of being smarter about it. And you seem to think we’re all okay putting in these crazy long hours indefinitely if it means finding the ‘perfect” candidates. Honestly, I don’t know where you’re coming from,” countered Paul, still smarting from the recent loss of two team members.
Jack, the team leader, was blindsided by the conflicting views. He didn’t know where to take this conversation next. He had hoped that the team would agree on a few practical next steps before quickly moving on. He was relieved when they ran out of time to continue the discussion, but he knew they’d have to pick up the conversation again soon.
Sarah and Paul did agree on one thing: “We have no resolution because Jack will do anything to avoid conflict. If only he’d give us more time for honest conversations so we can explain where we’re coming from. Even if we end up disagreeing, at least we’d have a chance to empathize with each other and learn something.”
What happens when differences are ignored, dismissed or glossed over?
- Leaders lose credibility and trust when team members have no safe place to air their differences
- It’s harder for team members to build the kind of trusting relationships that foster strong collaboration
- Poor decisions that few people agree to are more likely to be made when divergent viewpoints can’t be debated or discussed
- Groupthink becomes the norm, stifling conversation and shutting down creative ideas
Tips for guiding conversations to safely address divergent perspectives
- Acknowledge the tension. Start by recognizing the passion people feel for their viewpoints and the importance of the topic.
- Refocus on team goals. Remind people about shared goals and why they’re important. This can help frame the discussion as collaborative, not combative. For example, “We need to increase the size of our team with top-notch talent by 25% within the next six months.”
- Establish basic guidelines for respectful communication, like sharing the air, allowing each person to finish their thoughts and balancing advocacy with inquiry. Ask people to modify or add to the list and gain verbal agreement from all.
- Encourage curiosity, not animosity. Remind people that the purpose of the exchange is not to win anything, but to learn from each other through understanding. For instance, you might go around the table and ask each person to briefly offer their viewpoint, along with their assumptions and rationale, and to withhold their responses until everyone has had a chance to speak. People are free to pass.
- Ask whether anyone else has anything to add. If there are power differentials or communication styles that may inhibit the easy, safe verbal participation from everyone, encourage people to make written contributions through chat as an option.
- Give a moment or two for silent reflection before asking people to identify for areas of greatest divergence (and convergence), recurring themes, and key differences that nay have the greatest impact could affect the team’s ability to achieve shared goals. If your team is large, ask people to reflect in small groups and then share later. As part of the debrief, be prepared to add key points that may not have been mentioned.
- Leave time for people to think and reflect before striving to reach some kind of agreement. You might start by stating what you’re hearing and seeing, and then ask each person to state their perspectives (which may have changed), without interruption. At this point, I sometimes use a numerical scale signifying the degree of agreement with the topic at hand, if appropriate. (See this Communique for details)
- Whether you end the discussion with a unanimous agreement, a simple majority, an overwhelming consensus or the need to continue to the conversation, thank people for their conviction, courage and curiosity, and let them know how their willingness to share and listen to other perspectives has contributed to helping create a stronger team better positioned to achieve their shared goals.
It’s tempting for leaders to imagine that everyone thinks pretty much alike and will easily come to an agreement about critical issues affecting the team. If only that were true! It can be uncomfortable (and yes, time-consuming) to have to surface and talk through differences when it would be so easy to muscle through a discussion for the sake of reaching a speedy conclusion. The benefits of enabling and encouraging healthy debates far outweigh the time and energy they require.
Links
Downloadable resources from Guided Insights:
- New! Facilitation Skills Learning Community of Practice program offering
- Contentious topics ripe for discussion – downloadable PDF
- Creating and Adopting Norms for Your Virtual Team – Quick List
My past Communiques
- Why Can’t Everyone Just Agree? 8 Tips for Building Consensus
- We Really, Really Need to Talk
- Taking the Pain Out of Consensus-Building in Virtual Meetings
- Confronting Dysfunctional Behavior Without Completely Losing It
- Before Attempting Big Change, First, Root Out the Dysfunction
- Recognize and address early signs of virtual team dysfunction to avoid irrecoverable problems later
- Confronting Conflict with Courage in Remote Teams
- 8 Steps for Facilitating Constructive Conflict, Virtually
- Tips for creating win-win solutions virtually – Resolving conflicts when you can’t see eye to eye
