Different visions : when do they become a problem

No office exists without a certain number of differing visions. Some of this is down to interpretation; some of it is down to innovation. And some, of course, is down to disagreement.

What are these differences, and when do they become a problem?

First thing to consider, as always, is that nothing is as bad as it may seem, insofar as good communication can be established. Good communication must be goal/solution oriented, and it must be curious. Rather than focusing on the old "my way or the highway" approach, it is useful to want to know what others see in a situation. Different people have different strengths, and where insecurities (and inflated heads) aren't involved, these strengths can be brought to full potential, and can contribute to solution finding and goal setting. Say one person is a marketing genius while another is really good with product design. Their opinions on possible interaction the public may have with the product may differ, but they are both of vast importance if the business wishes to create a product and market it in ways that will optimise its potential. Prioritising one opinion over another in this case makes no sense, but may occur where people are pitted against each other rather than allowed and encouraged to harness their varied gifts to help the entirety of the project along. While good marketing will bring the product to the public, good design, and understanding what an average user needs and expects, will ensure that it doesn't flop. Focusing on only one aspect would either under-advertise or advertise poorly, impacting client decision making, or deliver too poor a product with a glam commercial that will ultimately dissuade dissatisfied clients from shopping from that brand again. But if communication is lacking, it is unlikely that the team members will create a working strategy that will be as optimal as it can get (which is still likely to impact the product, in short or long run).

In this case, the differing opinions may be down to interpretation - of importance, of what the product represents, even of what the goals of the company may be in longer term. Focusing on marketing may seem more logical in cases where a company is in dire straights, or just very eager to make lots of profit, and senior management may therefore overfocus on marketing, while letting research into how the design fits to client expectations slip a little. In reality, both are equally important, and an unbiased mind is needed to point that out.

When it comes to innovation, a new factor, perhaps a change that needs to be adapted to, or a completely new idea, is in play instead of merely a disagreement on which aspect of production must be focused on. Here, innovators' opinions may be greeted with too much or too little enthusiasm, and it isn't impossible that not enough work will be accorded fitting it to the usual brand self-representation. Especially when a brand does something very unusual, this offers countless possibilities, but, of course, many of those can also lead to poorer than average results. A very innovative sports shoe, for instance, may gather a quick cult following, or it may be found to be "less than" by the usual buyers' assessment (who expected, needed, wanted or were led to believe they were getting more of the old, but got something else), while not convincing enough people who weren't buyers to create a whole new subspecies of potential clients. Communicating all the possibilities and finding a way to make them work together is what makes or break differing opinions there.

Disagreement is a final stage of all things (and opinions) failing to mesh well. Disagreement can be down to persistent lack of finding a sound middle route to gather around in the previous arguments, down to ego or insecurities of someone on the team, who feels that they should be heard above all others, mostly because they need to feel in control, or indeed a complete difference in approach and opinion.

In a way, disagreement is the worst differing vision, because it is by nature already decided. When we say we disagree, and communication stops, we have reached an impasse. From here on, it may be difficult to continue; how difficult depends on the team. Therefore, it makes sense to nurture differing visions as a part of healthy communication, and perceive the only true "end" to it a very realistic consideration, such as eg shape (to keep with that image of the sports shoe from before, you can create the snazziest of shapes, but it won't work if it will preclude runners from running - that's when all reasonable people put the project to rest for aye). Lack of finding common ground should not be considered equally weighty. Instead, it makes sense to examine why common ground cannot be achieved.

What kind of considerations do team members have? What informs them? What interpretation of their information are the going with (this is a much overlooked feature of all human thinking...often, it is not information itself but how we interpret it that colours arguments)? What route is needed to get to the desired end goal/solution?

In cultures where maintaining one's opinion carries weight, where age, sex/gender, majority status or senior position impact whose word should be heard above whose else, differing visions are a recipe for disaster. In reality though, they don't need to be. Differing visions are healthy, insofar as they remain solution/goal focused, and do not become a personal battlefield in which people anxious to remain socially, culturally or otherwise relevant tousle for victory.