We signed up to lock our team in a conference room and bring in a consultant – a subject-matter expert. The consultant was amazing. She had that perfect blend of allowing us to be us – to be our team; and also, throwing in an outsider’s perspective of how we could make our team and outcomes better. She was consulting us on building systems that would help us scale with simplicity and sustainability. We were growing fast, and we needed help. So she guided us through a process to help build the needed infrastructure that would give us better processes and precision around our goals.

After one day of heavy meetings behind us, two hours into the final day, it happened. When I say “it happened,” allow me to explain – and explain it from two perspectives:

Perspective #1: Me and a coworker (a direct report) started to air opposite opinions on where we were headed in our new systems infrastructure. I thought she was getting too focused on strategy at the expense of not being able to drill-in with tactical planning and execution. She thought I was short-cutting strategy to get to tactical steps that may not support where we wanted to take the team to a higher level. We dug in and jumped into the fray. If I’m being candid about how I felt at the moment, I was fine with it. I love to wrestle things out a bit. I love a good fight. And, if she were being honest, she was fine with it as well. She, too, likes to wrestle things out a bit. She, too, loves a good fight. So we went there and hashed it out in the conference room; for, maybe, twenty-five or thirty minutes. At the end of it, after we were both closer to understanding each other’s point of view, we were done fighting it out. For clarity, though, we stopped fighting not because we were too tired, but because we had wrestled enough to understand two different opinions that could be more easily merged together than we had originally thought. But, to get there, we had to wrestle through it. We had to fight through it.

It’s kinda hard to write what I just said because I (and she) didn’t even see our interaction as a “fight.” We saw it as two professionals who were getting their disagreements on the table and working through them so we could produce the best outcome for the team. BUT, that’s not what the rest of the folks in the conference room thought. But I didn’t know that there was a completely different perspective until I walked out into the hallway, and other coworkers came up to me.

Perspective #2: “Doug, are you okay?” I was puzzled in my face, my tone, and my words, and said, “Ummm…what do you mean? Yeah, I’m fine.”  Candidly, my mind started racing a bit. I’m thinking, “did I say something inappropriate, under my breath, or loud and proud, and it was more of an instinctive remark that I had not even realized that I had said?”  The two people that had grabbed me for this sidebar conversation in the hallway went back and forth saying comments like, “I can’t believe how combative she was?”, “That was really disrespectful; you are her boss?” or “I can’t believe you two just fought in front of our team…and in front of the consultant!” The consultant was even thinking, “Yikes. I’m not a leadership and culture consultant, but I know that you guys need help.”

Before I move on to explain how this impacted the team, let me do a quick fly-by on our differences in wiring/personality:

Me: Enneagram 8, direct, pioneer, ENTJ, Red, visionary, venturer, combat veteran, big business veteran, task-focused (as opposed to relationship-focused), etc.

Her: The same as above. Not identically. Her Enneagram is a bit different, and she was never in combat. But she is much more like me in the above descriptions than not.

The rest of the team: Well, it was the opposite of her and me. They were more nurturing, people-focused, and relational.

So, how did this impact the team?

It made them scared to enter into conflict. Hands down, there is no other way to say it. They. Were. Scared.

And, for the record, “conflict” is not bad in and of itself. It’s neutral. Yes, neutral. It can be good, such as when it’s used to flesh-out gaps on a team, or tee-up diverse opinions so that a team can arrive at the best opinion (or course of action). And, not to state the obvious, it can be bad; such as when you are powering-up to win the argument…even at the expense of losing influence because you are bowing-up so much. 

This is where it gets a bit murky, but we will blitz through this quickly because… It’s pretty straightforward.

Even if me and my direct report were truly focused on fleshing-out gaps in our system so the team could be better, does it matter if, in the process, we are shutting down good conflict because everyone else is scared to jump into the boxing ring? They are fearful about offering up diverse ideas and opinions because they will have to jump into a good fight. And, for those people who aren’t wired like me and my direct report, it’s not a “good” fight. It’s simply a fight.

By the way, all of this happened years ago.

Let’s fast-forward to this week.

RethinkWork just finished up a 2.5-day retreat with a top-tier management team that we are doing coaching and consulting for. It was with a large executive team – almost ten people in number. They are go-getters, yet hungry and humble to learn. They are mission-focused, yet are willing to put people first and foremost. They plan to double in size soon (even though they are already a large company), yet will not move too fast where they cannot keep their hands around the pulse of the culture of the engagement of their employees.

By any stretch of the imagination for any leadership coach and/or consulting agency, they are a dream client.

But as we marched towards the end of our time together, and we breached the last and final workshop, I thought to myself, “this is where it’s going to get messy. We are talking about conflict – and how to do it the right way. And this executive team, even though they are impressive, they are going to get tripped up on this workshop. They are a bunch of go-getting, pioneering, visioneering, exploring new territories, buckle-up for the fun – and buckle up for the FIGHT types of leaders.” I thought that they were going to need extra help to not create an atmosphere in their organization that created fear around conflict. I thought to myself about them and for them, “don’t lead like me X years ago. Don’t do what I did.”

Forty-five minutes later, we were done in the final session for this 2.5-day meeting. They didn’t get tripped up. The ends didn’t justify the means. They didn’t excuse poor conflict management towards a higher calling of making this company excellent. Instead, they just got it. They threaded the needle between conflict (which is good) and a conscientious approach (which is good). They threw the last 10% on the table of what the gaps were ALONG with the value that relationships are important 100% of the time. They understood that as leadership goes, so does the team go. If the subordinate layers of direct reports see a go-getter executive team who is always looking for a good fight, they will think that’s how they (as a direct reports) are required to engage in conflict. And the reality is, that most of the direct reports don’t want to engage in conflict that way. Most of them want something different. Most of them, well, want this:

The things that this team will DO to navigate conflict:

• Ask clarifying and thought-provoking questions.

• Be generally curious about the perspectives in the room.

• Be humble.

• Be teachable.

• Be accepting (this transforms the team).

• Being an attentive listener.

• Be professional.

• Keep it steady. Calm is contagious.

• Get the last 10% on the table (or leave nothing unsaid), but in a way that respects the person/people in the room, and their opinions.

• Marked by love for each other, love for the team, love for the purpose and mission of the organization.

The things that this team will AVOID when navigating conflict:

• Exhibiting anger.

• Exhibiting aggression.

• Being too quick to respond.

• Being too quick to finish the conversation and exit the conflict.

• Being disinterested.

• Being dismissive.

• Being annoyed.

That’s what this executive team came up with. Isn’t that amazing? At the moment, I thought two things: (1) Are they going to pay me, their leadership and culture consultant, since they pretty much came up with this on their own; and (2) What would my team have been like X years ago if we broached conflict this way?

If I could time-travel back X years and go face-to-face with myself, I would enter the arena. I would wrestle with myself and power up and tell him how he and his team need to engage in conflict. I would yell at him how they need to do it differently. I would remind him that conflict is necessary in business, and that It is all about creating peace through conflict.

Okay, maybe I would throttle it back a bit; but I’d be lying if I didn’t admit I still like a good fight.