Imagine you’re sitting around the boardroom table while your boss unveils a company initiative. Your co-workers are nodding enthusiastically, seemingly oblivious to the glaring errors and misguided solutions the plan entails. When the floor opens for questions, you remain silent, however, reluctant to criticize when everyone else seems to be in agreement.
The scenario is a common one in Canadian workplaces. Employees are reluctant to share ideas or conflicting opinions for fear of upsetting their bosses, being ignored or, worse, being labelled the office troublemaker.
“There are certainly social forces in the workplace that lead people to censor themselves, or to suppress or discount their own opinions,” says John Oesch, assistant professor of organizational behaviour at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management. “It’s hard to be the nail that sticks out because that’s the one that always gets hammered.”
But workplace disagreements don’t have to lead to the Third World War. Management experts say they can even be beneficial — if they’re handled properly. The key to effective disagreement, Oesch says, is to approach it impersonally: “The phrase I use when I teach conflict management is: ‘Be tough on
the issue and be soft on the person.’
“There’s a big fear of conflict at work,” he adds. “But what we really fear is the personal stuff — the gossip, the degradation.”
Conflict falls into two distinct categories:
cognitive conflict and interpersonal conflict. Cognitive (positive) conflict involves a genuine disagreement but fosters effective debate and idea-sharing that ultimately leads to a solution. Interpersonal (negative) conflict describes situations in which people — not their ideas — come under attack.
Cognitive, of course, is the preferable course of action.
If you wish to voice your disagreement using the principles of cognitive conflict, you would focus on the issue at hand and initiate a discussion. What is the ultimate goal? What are the options? What options best lead to a solution? You encourage co-workers to get involved in the evaluation process and offer their opinions.
And you should never make the attack personal. “Even if you have a legitimate idea, people will dismiss you if you come at them and say they’re an idiot because they haven’t already thought of it themselves,” Oesch says.
A better approach is to listen to ideas without criticism, respectfully acknowledge them and follow up with two or three options.
In the event that you don’t have any other ideas, ask to continue the discussion for another 10 minutes so other options can be discussed.
If you’re going into a planned meeting in which you know you’ll be presented with ideas you oppose, do your homework. Find out who your allies are beforehand and be prepared to offer a couple of thoroughly researched alternatives. It often helps to demonstrate what the boss would lose if he or she sticks with a particular idea. “People focus a lot on what they might lose, so it’s a good influence tactic,” Oesch says. For instance, if one idea will cause other projects to fall behind, suggest a solution that allows all the work to be completed efficiently.
Unfortunately, office conflict can get particular tricky. Another alternative that Oesch recommends is choosing one person to set up a one-on-one meeting with your boss to present other options. Here again, it’s important to demonstrate the benefits of other ideas and let the boss know that co-workers are behind them.
“A private meeting reduces the embarrassment factor, and the boss will appreciate it,” Oesch says.
One of the most common sources of workplace disagreements is job expectations: the boss has one idea of what’s required of employees and the employees have quite another. It’s what Oesch refers to as the “illusion of transparency” phenomenon.
“People assume that everyone knows what they’re thinking, especially people in power,” he says. “They think, ‘How can you not know what I’m thinking? I’m your boss.’ But it’s up to both parties to make sure they’re clear on that.”
A good way to prevent a communication breakdown is to schedule regular meetings to determine short- and long-term goals.
And goals should be put in writing if possible. Annual performance evaluations are still a good practice, Oesch says, but they often come too late. It’s up to employees to “negotiate” what’s expected of them on a regular basis so they can deliver.
@page_break@Finally, lead by example. Help to create a workplace that nurtures cognitive conflict by asking others for their opinions and perspectives, even if you don’t agree with them.
“It’s not OK to insult anyone, to degrade anyone or to talk behind anyone’s back,” Oesch says. “Recognize that and behave that way.” IE
The art of disagreeing — agreeably
Going along with the crowd may avoid immediate conflict, but there are effective ways to challenge a bad idea
- By: Lara Hertel
- August 3, 2005 August 3, 2005
- 11:45