Why Conflict is a Good Thing | Dale Feinauer | TEDxOshkosh

Summary

The speaker explores the dichotomy of conflict in decision-making, arguing that while most people claim to dislike conflict, it is ubiquitous in our lives, from TV shows to sports. They emphasize that conflict, when managed properly, can enhance decision-making by preventing groupthink and fostering deep analysis. The talk contrasts functional conflict, which is outcome-focused, with dysfunctional conflict, which becomes personal and counterproductive. The speaker advocates for structured conflict with clear beginnings, middles, and ends, using sports and law as models. They conclude by advising that the role in decision-making should be like a thermostat, regulating the level of conflict to ensure productive outcomes.

Takeaways

• 🤔 The speaker challenges the audience's aversion to conflict, suggesting that it's a natural part of life and often unavoidable.
• 📺 Conflict is prevalent in various forms of media, including news, dramas, comedies, and sports, indicating its ubiquity in society.
• 👥 People often claim to dislike conflict, yet they engage in or enjoy it vicariously through entertainment and daily life.
• 💡 Conflict can be beneficial in decision-making, leading to better analysis and avoiding groupthink, as exemplified by the Bay of Pigs incident.
• ⚖️ The speaker advocates for 'good conflict' in organizations, which is focused on outcomes rather than personal attacks.
• 🚫 Dysfunctional conflict, which becomes personal and harmful, should be avoided as it leads to a loss of collaboration and can result in emotional and physical harm.
• 🏋️‍♂️ Conflict can serve as a source of motivation and is crucial for personal and organizational growth and development.
• 🏈 Sports and law are cited as examples where conflict is managed effectively, with clear rules and structures that prevent it from becoming dysfunctional.
• 📆 To manage conflict effectively, it should be scheduled into the decision-making process, managed with a code of conduct, and brought to a timely conclusion.
• 🔚 A clear end to conflict is essential to prevent it from becoming paralyzing and dysfunctional; consensus or decisive leadership can be used to conclude debates.

Q & A

What is the speaker's opinion on conflict in decision-making?

The speaker believes that conflict can be a wonderful thing in decision-making when done right, as it helps to better analyze questions, avoids groupthink, and can be a source of motivation.

How does the speaker differentiate between functional and dysfunctional conflict?

Functional conflict is focused on the outcome and avoids getting personal, while dysfunctional conflict is where it gets personal and individuals engage in win-lose decision-making, often leading to a lose-lose situation.

What historical example does the speaker use to illustrate the dangers of groupthink?

The speaker uses the Bay of Pigs invasion as an example of groupthink, where President Kennedy and his advisers unanimously agreed on a disastrous plan without sufficient debate or consideration of dissenting opinions.

Why does the speaker argue that conflict is necessary in personal and organizational growth?

The speaker argues that conflict is necessary for growth because it often occurs during challenging periods in life, pushing individuals and organizations to confront issues and adapt, which leads to development.

What are the three key elements the speaker suggests for managing conflict effectively?

The three key elements for managing conflict effectively are a clear beginning, a well-managed middle, and a clean end. This ensures that conflict is focused, constructive, and resolved in a timely manner.

How does the speaker propose to handle fast thinkers and slow processors during conflict?

The speaker suggests managing the conflict in a way that allows both fast thinkers and slow processors to have their turn, ensuring that everyone gets time to think and contribute, which helps maintain a balanced and fair conflict resolution process.

What role does the speaker believe the legal system plays in handling conflict?

The speaker views the legal system as a model for handling conflict correctly, as it has a clear structure with rules, enforcement, and a defined process that leads to a resolution.

Why is it important to have a clean ending to conflict, according to the speaker?

Having a clean ending to conflict is important because unresolved conflict can lead to paralysis by analysis, where decisions are never made and the conflict becomes dysfunctional, hindering progress.

What does the speaker suggest as a method to ensure everyone's opinion is heard during conflict?

The speaker suggests that after the debate, the decision-maker should reflect on the opinions and echo them back to ensure they were heard and considered, even if the final decision goes in a different direction.

How does the speaker recommend managing emotions during conflict to avoid it becoming personal?

The speaker recommends managing emotions by reminding oneself that most conflicts are not significant in the big picture of life, and thus, should not lead to emotional upset. This approach helps keep the focus on the issue at hand rather than personal feelings.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 The Paradox of Conflict in Decision-Making

The speaker begins by questioning the audience's stance on conflict, highlighting the common misconception that people dislike conflict. However, the speaker points out the irony in this belief by noting the prevalence of conflict in various forms of entertainment, such as news, dramas, comedies, and sports. The speaker argues that conflict can be beneficial in decision-making within organizations and personal life, despite the general aversion to it. They differentiate between functional and dysfunctional conflict, with the former being productive and the latter being personal and destructive. The speaker emphasizes the importance of managing conflict to avoid negative outcomes like emotional and physical harm, and to foster collaboration and effective decision-making.

05:01

🏆 Conflict as a Catalyst for Better Decisions

The speaker argues that conflict can be a positive force in decision-making, using the historical example of the Bay of Pigs invasion to illustrate the dangers of groupthink. They explain that the lack of conflict and dissent within President Kennedy's advisory group led to a disastrous decision. The speaker contends that good conflict leads to better analysis, deeper thinking, and can serve as a source of motivation. They also discuss the personal and organizational growth that can result from conflict, and how it is embedded in critical societal decisions such as legal judgments and national security strategies. The speaker concludes by emphasizing the importance of managing conflict to ensure it remains functional and focused on outcomes rather than becoming personal and dysfunctional.

10:03

📚 Managing Conflict for Effective Decision-Making

The speaker discusses how to manage conflict effectively in decision-making processes, drawing parallels with sports and the legal system where conflict is structured and managed. They emphasize the importance of having a clear beginning, middle, and end to conflicts to avoid them becoming dysfunctional. The speaker suggests scheduling conflict into the decision-making process, establishing a code of conduct, and managing the conflict in a way that allows all parties to participate fairly. They also touch on the need to control emotions to prevent conflict from becoming personal and destructive. The speaker provides practical advice on how to ensure conflict remains focused on the issue at hand and leads to better decision-making.

15:04

🔚 Achieving Resolution Through Conflict

In the final paragraph, the speaker addresses the need for a clean ending to conflicts to prevent them from becoming paralyzing or dysfunctional. They advocate for consensus in decision-making but also recognize the necessity of making a decision even when consensus is not reached. The speaker encourages the audience to be comfortable with the decision-making process, even if it does not always result in the outcome they prefer. They liken the role in decision-making to a thermostat, adjusting the level of conflict to maintain a functional and productive environment. The speaker concludes by reiterating the benefits of conflict when managed correctly and thanking the audience.

Keywords

💡Conflict

Conflict, in the context of the video, refers to disagreements or clashes of opinion that can arise in various settings, such as personal relationships, organizations, or decision-making processes. The speaker argues that conflict can be a positive force, especially in decision-making, when it is managed properly and kept focused on the issue at hand rather than becoming personal. An example from the script is the discussion about how conflict can lead to better analysis and avoid groupthink, as illustrated by the historical example of the Bay of Pigs invasion.

💡Decision-making

Decision-making is the process of making choices or determining a course of action. The video emphasizes the importance of conflict in this process, suggesting that it can lead to more thorough analysis and better outcomes. The speaker contrasts 'win-lose' negotiation with a more collaborative approach, highlighting that conflict, when not personal, can enhance the decision-making process. The script mentions that the most important societal decisions often involve conflict, such as who goes to jail, who owns what, and when to go to war.

💡Dysfunctional conflict

Dysfunctional conflict is characterized by personal attacks, a win-lose mentality, and a breakdown in collaboration. The video describes it as a form of conflict that is counterproductive and can lead to emotional and physical harm. The speaker warns against this type of conflict, which is detrimental to organizations and personal relationships, and instead advocates for conflict that remains focused on the issue and aims for a constructive resolution.

💡Groupthink

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon where group members strive for consensus and harmony, often resulting in an irrational or flawed decision-making process. The video uses the Bay of Pigs invasion as an example of groupthink, where President Kennedy's advisors unanimously supported a disastrous plan to avoid conflict, leading to a significant failure. The speaker suggests that good conflict can prevent groupthink by encouraging diverse viewpoints and critical analysis.

💡Functional conflict

Functional conflict, as discussed in the video, is a form of conflict that is constructive and focused on the issue, rather than personal. It is managed well and leads to better outcomes in decision-making. The speaker suggests that functional conflict can enhance motivation, personal growth, and organizational development. An example from the script is the idea that conflict can lead to a deeper analysis of problems and solutions, thus improving the decision-making process.

💡Emotional harm

Emotional harm refers to the negative emotional consequences that can result from conflict, such as hurt feelings or damage to self-esteem. The video warns that when conflict becomes personal and dysfunctional, it can lead to emotional harm, where individuals say hurtful things to each other, potentially diminishing their sense of self-worth. The speaker emphasizes the importance of managing conflict to avoid such harm and to keep the focus on the issue, not the individuals involved.

💡Collaboration

Collaboration is the process of working together to achieve a common goal. The video contrasts collaboration with the win-lose approach to conflict, suggesting that when conflict is managed properly, it can foster collaboration rather than competition. The speaker argues that in a collaborative environment, individuals work together to solve problems and make decisions, which is more productive than when they engage in destructive conflict.

💡Personal growth

Personal growth refers to the development and improvement of one's abilities, character, and understanding. The video suggests that conflict can be a catalyst for personal growth, as it often occurs during challenging times that push individuals to adapt and learn. The speaker implies that facing conflict can lead to greater self-awareness and resilience, which are important aspects of personal development.

💡Organizational growth

Organizational growth refers to the expansion and development of an organization's capabilities, structure, and performance. The video relates organizational growth to conflict, suggesting that managed conflict can lead to better decision-making and, ultimately, to the growth and success of the organization. The speaker argues that conflict, when handled properly, can stimulate innovation and improve the organization's ability to adapt and thrive.

💡Consensus

Consensus is a situation in which all members of a group agree on a decision or course of action. The video discusses the pursuit of consensus in decision-making, noting that while it can be a goal, it is not always achievable or necessary. The speaker suggests that sometimes a decision must be made without complete agreement, and it is important to have a process in place to bring an end to the debate and move forward.

Highlights

Conflict can be a positive force in decision-making when handled properly.

People often claim to dislike conflict, yet are drawn to conflict-laden media like news, dramas, and sports.

Conflict avoidance can lead to groupthink, as illustrated by the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion.

Dysfunctional conflict, where discussions become personal, can harm collaboration and lead to a lose-lose situation.

Conflict can be a source of motivation, as seen in high-stakes scenarios like sports or debates.

Personal and organizational growth often stem from periods of conflict and challenge.

Conflict is integral to critical societal decisions such as legal judgments, property rights, and national security.

Sports and law effectively manage conflict through structured rules and clear resolutions.

A structured approach to conflict includes a clear beginning, middle, and end to prevent it from becoming dysfunctional.

Scheduling conflict into decision-making processes can lead to better analysis and consideration of alternatives.

Managing the middle of conflict involves setting a code of conduct and enforcing rules to keep discussions productive.

Emotional control is crucial in conflict to prevent it from escalating into personal attacks.

Conflict should have a clear ending to avoid decision paralysis and maintain forward momentum.

Consensus is ideal, but sometimes a decisive leader must end the debate and make a choice for the group.

The role of a decision-maker should be like a thermostat,调节 conflict to maintain a functional and productive environment.

Transcripts

I understand why people clap before you

did anything seems to be clapping should

only happen if you're good

conflict so we're gonna start off this

whole process with conflict and thinking

about conflict well let's start with the

question do you like conflict do you not

like conflict so if we put this into

three boxes people who would say I

really don't like conflict like to avoid

it

yeah conflict is okay and conflict is

something that I just love I just can't

wait to have conflict how many of you

would be in the I love to have conflict

mode I'm noting my boss's boss put his

hand up I don't know that that's

reassuring how many of you would be in

the mode of yeah I can handle conflict

it's okay and how many of you in the I

really don't like conflict so clean

somebody's got two hands up I don't like

conflict I don't like my spouse they

have conflict let's think about that for

a minute

most folks say they really don't like

conflict is that true what do you watch

on TV come on anybody what do you watch

you watch the news is there a little bit

of conflict in the news these days yep

what but the entire political process is

nothing but conflict you watch dramas on

TV it's about conflict you watch

comedies on TV it's about conflict you

watch sports on TV it's about conflict I

would contend that the I don't like

conflict is a little little marginal you

go home the neighbors are fighting you

could go to one side of the house open a

beer sit there listen to TV and you will

not hear the neighbors you could go to

the front porch and listen to the

neighbors fight no one's throwing

punches it's not out of control how many

of you are joining me on the porch

listening to the neighbors fight

and you just said you didn't like

conflict so do we like conflict do we

not like conflict maybe what the answer

is is we like conflict as long as we're

not in it conflict it's involving other

people but my basic point here is the

conflict can I would underline the word

can can be a wonderful thing when it

comes to decision-making in

organizations that's my primary area of

expertise also in your personal life

I'll deal with that much more gingerly

but conflict can be a wonderful thing in

decision-making that's the basic premise

now I will admit the conflict can be a

terrible thing in decision-making

typically we would define this as

dysfunctional conflict conflict that

gets personal is sort of the textbook

definition of conflict that gets to be

bad and and what happens when we have

dysfunctional conflict we have

dysfunctional conflict we lose

collaboration instead of people sitting

down collaboratively and figuring out

how can we work together and make

something good happen what we have is

individuals that involve engage in what

we often think of as win lose

negotiation win lose decision-making I

want to win I really don't want you to

necessarily get what you want at most I

don't care if you get what you want and

if you lose that's just as good and I

would contend that many of you and I

will not ask for a show of hands have

engaged in what I would describe as

lose-lose conflict that you've gotten

into conflict where I want the other

person to lose that my motivation is

more the pound of flesh out of the other

person because they've aggravated me so

much then it is that I want to get

something that I want and in fact again

no show of hands many of us have been in

a scenario where I don't mind if I lose

a little as long as I can make the other

person lose a lot this is clearly not

good in organ

but we do this we get aggravated we get

frustrated with other people and we get

aggravated the point we want to see them

lose this is clearly a bad thing

in addition conflict can result in

emotional harm people say things to each

other that is hurtful and individuals

become diminished in terms of their self

esteem because of the nature of the

conflict in addition there can be

physical harm as we know conflict can

get so far out of control that people

shoot each other that people do do bad

things what's the argument that conflict

can be a good thing conflict can be a

wonderful thing in decision-making

because it helps us to better analyze a

question it avoids groupthink I mean

getting an example of where we had

groupthink and it did not work out well

the invasion of Cuba the the Bay of Pigs

it looks like most of the audience is

young enough that you may very well not

have remembered the Bay of Pigs invasion

so just very quickly in terms of the

history you've got President Kennedy new

young president height to the Cold War

Khrushchev has been being very

belligerent there's a felt need for a

president can do something to show the

Soviets that he'll stand up to them the

invasion actually been planned during

the Eisenhower administration Kennedy

gets his advisers together the best and

the brightest all of these geniuses gets

him in the room and says should we do

the invasion of Cuba yes or no and to a

person to a man and in those days it was

men to a man they all said we should do

the invasion of Cuba and then they did

the invasion of Cuba and it was a

disaster for a variety of reasons

pulling the air support etc but

fundamentally it turned out to have been

a very very bad idea and a terrible

start for the Kennedy administration so

Kennedy brings his best and brightest

together in a room and says what the

heck happened how did this go from we

were making great decisions because I've

got them the best and the brightest who

we made a terrible decision how do we

decide to do this and they went around

the room again and everybody said well

you know I had some hesitancy I wasn't

sure it was the right idea but I wanted

to be a

team player I wanted to be part of the

group I didn't want to be divisive I

didn't want to create conflict in the

interest of avoiding conflict we made a

very bad decision if each one of those

people would have spoken up would have

talked about their hesitancy very likely

that wouldn't have happened or it

wouldn't have happened that way

good conflict in a decision-making

process will result in much better

analysis much deeper thinking beyond

that conflict can be a great source of

motivation we all think about the great

raw raw speech that you give a halftime

of football game you don't have to give

speeches and if you play sports know

that anytime you go into any kind of

conflict arena there's plenty of

adrenaline in addition it's great for

personal growth and development great

for organizational growth and

development the concept that we develop

sitting on the beach drinking a mai tai

chanting our mantra it's never really

the way it works I think if you think

about when your personal growth has

occurred it's been in periods of

conflict it's been when your life wasn't

going great when there were issues when

there were challenges so conflict can be

a great thing and conflict in

decision-making is embedded into the

most important decisions we make as our

society I would contend the most

important decisions we make are about

who goes to jail who owns what and when

we go to war if we don't get those right

our society does not hang together we

have embedded conflict into all of those

who goes to jail the criminal justice

system and thus in the social justice

system the property rights process are

all embedded with conflict I think I own

something you think you own something we

disagree about this contract whatever

you get an attorney I get an attorney we

pay people to do what we pay them to

fight we pay them to have conflict the

system is predicated on my attorney and

your attorney going fight before a judge

and out of that conflict the judge can

make the best decision it's true in the

legal system

it is now true in the national defense

arena no longer does the president of

United States ever

yeah consistent advice unanimous support

everybody agrees we should do X it never

happens the National Security Adviser

now says you folks make the argument

that we should invade Syria you make the

argument for a no-fly zone you make the

argument for additional sanctions you

folks come up with something else and I

don't care what you really think that's

irrelevant you go before the president

United States and make the best argument

you can for a for not a for B for not B

because we have learned that we make

better decisions if we first fight about

them so premise is we make better

decisions when we have conflict raising

the question how do we do this

how do we have good functional conflict

that is focused on the outcome and avoid

the dysfunctional conflict which is

where it gets personal where we get mad

at each other well where do we do it

right I would contend we do conflict

right in our society in two arenas

sports and the law I know we like to

pick on attorneys but I think they get

this one largely right and what's true

about the conflict that occurs in both

the sports arena and in the legal arena

in both of those arenas conflict has a

very clear beginning the game starts the

umpire says go and you throw out the

first pitch there's a wind-up clock

there's a whistle and the game starts

there's a clear middle there's a clear

management of the conflict process there

are rules in a way to enforce the rules

attorneys go to court they can't just

say anything they want and do anything

they want there are rules of evidence

there's things that the judge does to

manage the process and if you don't do

what the judge tells you to do in court

bad things can happen to you and there

is a clear ending conflict that drags on

conflict that goes on and on and on

tends to become dysfunctional we have

this argument again and people get

annoyed by the fact that once again I'm

going to have to have the same debate

over and over the key to having good

conflict and decision-making a clear

beginning

well-managed middle and a clear end so

let's think about how we do those three

things clean beginning well-managed

middle and a clean end how do we do a

clean beginning we expect conflict to

happen conflict shouldn't break out in

decision-making you're not in a process

of trying to decide should we do a or B

some important decision in life and

conflict breaks out you should schedule

it into the process we know that next

Tuesday at 8 we're going to engage in a

discussion about whether your

organization should grow this way or

that way

a couple's about the decision so we buy

a new house should we remodel this house

well let's fight about it let's have

conflict let's think about what are the

pros and cons of a what are the pros and

cons of B we're about ready to make the

decision to do something one of the

questions I love to ask when I'm ready

to make a decision is why might this be

a really dumb decision because I've made

decisions in life that were really dumb

decisions but I figured that out all too

often after I made the decision asking

the question why might this be a really

dumb decision and encouraging conflict

before it blows up is the way you want

to do this thing you schedule conflict

into the process and then you manage the

middle just as in sports there are rules

and there's consequences for violating

rules you have a code of conduct in this

organization in this relationship this

is how we're going to manage conflict

when we have conflict it won't get

personal you're not allowed to call each

other people other people's names you

have to give people timeouts if they

want whatever your rules are but you

have a code of conduct and you have a

way to enforce it one of the

organization's I work with they have a

bunch of stuff fish in all their meeting

rooms a little plush ones not the you

know I caught this trophy fish thing and

if I think you violated the code of

conduct I pick up one of these fish and

throw it at you but first of all can you

really get mad at somebody for throwing

a stuffed fish at you I mean you'd this

should lighten the mood a bit and the

concept is you just did something fishy

and so then the meeting stops we move

from having debate about this

- how do we deal with this violation of

the code of conduct you need some

methodology that says these are rules

when we have conflict this is how we're

going to do it and if you play outside

of those rules there are consequences

you need to manage the conflict you need

to recognize that some people think fast

I'm a fast thinker put me into a debate

I can come up with an analysis right

away go my wife is a slow I used to say

thinker she objects to that she it's

she's a slow processor I do want to be

clear I'm not standing in front of a

group of folks saying my wife is a slow

thinker

some people think fast some think slow

if I'm managing conflict now I've got

fast thinkers and slow processors and I

put them in a room and say go make the

decision now the fast thinkers are fine

the slow process are frustrated because

they didn't get time to think about it

so the conflict breaks down we need to

manage the conflict in such a way that

the fast thinkers and the slow

processors all get their turn we need to

keep a motion out of it have you ever

been in conflict where you said

something that you knew had no shot of

helping to resolve the issue no shot at

making this all get better and instead

what it was gonna do is make it worse

but it was gonna feel really good to say

it again I do not need a show of you but

and somebody's got two hands up again on

that one no don't do that that does not

help you have to find a way to control

your emotions you have to find a way to

control the emotions of other

individuals so that we can have conflict

without it getting emotional loads of

ways to do that and that would be a

whole nother talk but fundamentally

remind yourself that it doesn't matter

in the big picture of life so why most

of things we have conflict over laying

on your deathbed are you gonna care

laying on your deathbed I'm gonna think

about my spouse and my children maybe a

little bit else most of stuff we have

conflict on the big picture it doesn't

matter

don't let yourself get emotionally upset

and it's not going to help

well manage middles

and a clean ending you need a clean end

conflict cannot drag on and on it it

paralysis by analysis we never make a

decision the organization a couple of

whoever don't move forward but beyond

that the conflict that drags on and on

and on inevitably becomes dysfunctional

so what you want to do is have a clean

end and what we love in organizations is

we have consensus so we got everybody in

the room we had a discussion we had a

debate side a side B we had the

discussion we had a nice debate okay

what does everybody really think and now

we've all agreed that we want to do a

I'm an HR person by training the

accusation against us is we can't make a

decision unless we first all hold hands

sing Kumbaya and make sure everybody

feels good which is kind of true about

HR types but sometimes we can't get to

consensus sometimes in organization

somebody needs to stand up I do a lot of

work in family businesses and say look

I've heard sigh day I've heard side B it

turns out my name is on the building and

I've decided the answer is a I love

consensus but don't be afraid to have a

methodology that says this is how we

will end the debate we will not let this

thing drag on and on somebody will end

it and my experience has been even if I

quote lose I the decision is made not

the direction I wanted that's okay I

don't get mad at that as long as I felt

like I was heard as long as I felt like

my opinion was considered you never ask

somebody their opinion unless you really

want it but if you listen to it you hear

it in the debate you recognize it echo

it back and then make a decision to go

another direction my experience has been

in organizations people's like all right

that's fine fundamentally the argument

is conflict is a wonderful thing in

decision-making if done right your job

in decision-making is to be a thermostat

if there's not enough conflict you need

to turn it up if there's too much

conflict you got to turn it down you've

got to keep conflict in the functional

non personal focusing on the outcome

you've got to have a process that avoids

conflict moving into the dysfunctional

becoming

personal and if you do that I am

confident that you will have better

decisions thank you and have a good day

[Applause]