Structures That Support Healthy Conflict

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the importance of having more conflict, not less; I also wrote about the importance of establishing a baseline of trust to make way for healthier conflict. But having more and better conflict takes more than goodwill; it’s essential to think about what structures support healthy conflict. Over the 15 or so years that I’ve been helping teams do great work, I’ve identified systems that will turn good intentions into results.

Start with establishing common agreements and goals at the team level. Get clear about what you’re all working together to achieve. Articulate it in simple terms. Then, agree on how you will accomplish those goals: we’ll meet weekly, we’ll communicate daily via Slack, we’ll answer emails within 24 hours, etc.

Create communication processes that emphasize clarity and transparency. Some minor conflicts result from miscommunication—poorly worded emails, thoughtless choice of words, not keeping the right people informed, etc. Predict and build systems to eliminate as much miscommunication as you can. For example, when you find yourself in a debate or argument with someone, pick up the phone or walk down the hall—Slack and email are dangerous ways to settle differences. 

Build conflict into your meeting structure. Establishing normalcy around respectful disagreement is the key to healthy conflict. Leaders can encourage debate both by asking for it and showing appreciation for it. Establish boundaries to keep it safe and productive. Some examples I’ve seen from teams I’ve worked with: no personal attacks, no repeating points, back up your arguments with facts, state opinions as opinions (rather than as fact), taking breaks when things get heated, etc...

Discourage caucusing. These are sub-groups that meet before or after a meeting, usually to find ways to support or reject a course of action. The place for all debate that is relevant to the whole team is in the team meeting with the entire team present. Caucusing depletes trust and tends to focus more on pushing an agenda rather than finding the truth. 

Value curiosity as much as correctness. The curious person will want to find the truth and not just find evidence he’s right. Having the correct answer is great for obvious reasons, but having a repeatable process to get that correct answer starts with a curious mind. 

Have a process for getting back on track. Humans are humans, so even when we have trust and solid processes, our emotions can get the best of us. When this happens, I recommend a re-setting conversation that starts with two important questions: “Is this helping us achieve our goals?” and, “Is this in alignment with our agreements?” Often, it’s best to have a third party there to facilitate that conversation. 

These are just a few of the structures I’ve seen that have helped teams have healthier conflict and work more effectively together. If you’ve got some great examples, I’d love to hear from you in the comments below.