The case for conflict

Last week I was involved in a couple of interesting strategy sessions.  What made them interesting was that on both occasions we led off with vision in terms of where we wanted to be.  There was no debate about that, but then when we went down a level, there was lots of discussion. In one case, the way into the debate was a discussion about barriers.  In the other case the debate was about milestones. 

The debate resulted in some real clarity.  The barriers debate generated an action list of improvements, while the milestone debate clarified the immediate versus longer term priorities. 

The important point is this: in both cases, people were prepared to put forward a perspective and others were prepared to say “I’m not sure I agree: this is how I see it”. Now let’s be clear: this is hard work.  You have to be prepared to be frustrated that you’re failing to convince someone, you have to be prepared to let go of being right, you may not even win the argument.  But losing a debate that generates clarity and consensus is not losing at all.  In fact everyone wins, so long as you are guided by one consideration: what is in the best interests of the company? If your position is influenced by personal agendas, point-scoring, being right, personal advancement, then it’s not a constructive debate, it’s just conflict. But if you’re genuinely advocating for what you believe is in the best interests of the company, then the conflict is constructive and it’s essential to the process of collaboration.  We’ll cover this in more detail in a Mastery session next year. 

In your next strategy session, don’t shy away from debate and disagreement.  One of our core philosophies is “where there’s insight, there’s responsibility”.  If you’ve got a view about the company’s interests, you’ve got a responsibility as a leader to air it.  Participate fully and vigorously in the debate, then fully and vigorously fall into line with the team’s decision. 

All the best,

Mike