Us vs Us- Leadership using conflict as a tool
Although most of us are socially conditioned to avoid conflict, achieving optimal decision-making in Heart Center conferences requires the presence of ‘just the right amount’ of conflict – and it is the role of leadership to maintain conflict at a level which maximizes productivity.
Where do your conferences fall within the spectrum?
The spectrum of conflict:
1. At one extreme, some leaders maintain a culture of ‘conflict aversion’ where a high value is placed on avoiding the tension associated with interpersonal conflict. Leaders steer the discussion clear of any potential conflict - with the consequence that important conversations are avoided to preserve an atmosphere of ‘artificial harmony’.
Consequence: Poor ideas may be accepted by the group rather than allowing dissent to disrupt the group’s over-prioritized sense of harmony.
2. A culture with slightly greater ability to manage tension will recognize conflict but limit responses to indirect recognition of conflict. When participants disagree with an idea, subtle statements will be made to recognize the issue at hand (e.g. “sniffing”) but the group will still steer clear of the necessary tough conversation (e.g. “but not saying”).
Consequence: Poor decisions that are put forward might be widely recognized as poor, but rather than bringing forward concerns, indirect comments will be made to indicate concern (e.g. sniffing). After the conference, post-decision caustic backbiting is often present in hallway conversations as participants state “I knew it was a bad idea” – but didn’t actually voice their concerns in an open manner. Leaders must be finely attuned to ‘sniffing’ to decipher the vague messages indirectly expressed when a ‘bad idea’ is put forward. (What good is talent if the participants will not speak their mind?!)
3. The optimal culture embraces conflict which is tightly focused upon the task or decision at hand (“Task-Related Conflict”). Passionate discussion of issues is embraced as a central cultural norm – but the participants steer clear of comments that impugn the character, competence, or motives of other participants. Although avoiding direct personal attacks, the open candor will frequently create some discomfort as ideas are discussed and weaknesses openly identified. Those with an emotional stake in promoting their idea will feel this discomfort. The discomfort, however, is more akin to the discomfort associated with a great workout in a competitive environment – rather than the discomfort associated with personal injury. The welcoming attitude to robust discussion in a Task-Related Conflict environment leverages the available talent within the team and leads to optimal decision making.
Consequence: Decision making is optimized because the team’s full intellectual energy is brought to bear on the issue/task/decision at hand without concern that there are negative social ramifications associated with the discussion. The focus is solely on the mission of the group – and not on attacking the integrity of the participants. Even when disagreement exists during the discussion, the team is comfortable with the ideal concept of ‘Disagree and Commit’. Morale tends to be high in intellectually charged environments focused on Task-Related Conflict.
4. Higher levels of tension are associated with ‘Relationship Conflict’ where emphasis on the negative interpersonal aspects of professional relationships becomes a large part of the discussion. Ideas are attacked based upon the interpersonal differences between speakers. Tension during these discussions can become quite high as the character, competence, and motivation of the speaker might be subtly (or openly) attacked.
Consequence: Decision making in conferences with high levels of Relationship Conflict are emotionally draining and tend to inhibit participation by many members of the team who may have important perspectives to contribute. Smart people may simply ‘keep their head down’ while loud opinionated bullies will push their agendas forward. The quality of decision making suffers as relationship conflict rises because of the increasing non-representativeness of the decisions made by the most aggressive – and the non-participation of less aggressive but talented individuals.
5. At an extreme, entering the realm of Destructive Conflict is characterized by an atmosphere of all-out combat. The subject of the decision at hand (e.g. the welfare of the patient) is incidental and a distant second behind the pervasive warfare between incompatible individuals and, typically, cliques within an organization. Sadly, I have seen conferences that were routinely engaged in this level of conflict (NB – Not in congenital cardiac surgery programs).
Consequence: With Destructive Conflict, the best interest of the patient takes a back seat to displays of aggressiveness, ego, self-serving action among combatants.
Summary: Maintaining conflict at a level which effectively focuses attention on the task at hand will optimize team performance in decision-making conferences through the encouragement of fully engaged participation - and thereby maximizing all of the available talent within the assembled group. Leaders must be constantly vigilant to 'dial up' the level of conflict when participants are ‘sniffing but not saying’ – encouraging open discussion. When conflict becomes interpersonal, leaders must redirect the conflict to refocus on the task at hand - creating an atmosphere of psychological safety. A leader affirming the rationale for task conflict - while prohibiting relationship conflict - sends an important cultural message to the team.
Conclusion: Optimal decision making requires leaders to maintaing constant attention to the level of conflict in a conference. Making good decisions leads to the best outcomes.
Adapted for Heart Centers from the pioneering work of Amy Edmondson . Please see these excellent sources for further reading:
Edmondson, AC. The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2018.
Edmondson AC, Smith DM; Too Hot To Handle? How to Manage Relationship Conflict. California Management Review, Vol 49 (1) Fall 2006