Does Your Leadership Style Reinforce Groupthink or Creative Abrasion?

In my earlier post , we discussed framing conflict not as something negative, but as creative abrasion. We used the examples of oysters creating pearls and coal turning to diamonds under extreme duress. We concluded with the premise that it’s the leader’s job to create a fertile environment for productive conflict, guiding the team to embrace creative friction and achieve true synergy.

Now, we address how that can be accomplished.

• Step One : Begin with a philosophical—but realistic—mind-set that conflict is natural, expected, and yes, even desired . And, if channeled properly, extremely productive. This is creative abrasion thinking.

• Step Two: Acknowledge and discuss conflict that is already occurring, and determine its sources and impact. Is it one-on-one, leader and subordinate, or team wide? Is it an annoyance, or is it debilitating?

• Step Three: Get serious about addressing conflict . Develop a plan and approach for resolving it, and hold people accountable for making this happen.

In this post, we’ll focus on the most difficult step: the very first one , which requires you to make what may potentially be a very considerable mental shift in your personal view of conflict. The problem is that abrasion is not creative unless a leader makes a conscious effort to make it so—and one necessary component of this is trust. When it comes to viewing conflict productively, the leader’s role in creating such an environment is so vital. Then, everyone on the team needs to become more comfortable when conflict occurs.

When heated, passionate exchanges ensue about alternative solutions, pros and cons, and choosing the right path, all parties can leave the debate with respect for the others if there is a strong foundation of trust . When trust has been broken, damaged, or never was established in the first place, then it is very difficult to engage in a debate about ideas.

Another critical component that a leader can control is hiring and valuing a team that exhibits a diversity of talent and thinking styles. It is hard to encourage different perspectives if they all resemble your own. This is a well-known issue with managers: hiring those people you like and to whom you can really relate can cause you to end up with a uniformly-minded team.

Harvard Business Review reported on a study that clearly demonstrated that teams that were homogeneous in thinking styles were initially very productive . This makes sense, since they all thought the same way, talked the same way, and in fact, could likely finish each other’s sentences. After a short period of time, however, their level of productivity peaked. Why? For the same reason that success had initially taken hold— they were all thinking, talking, and working the same way . The lack of diverse experiences, opinions, and approaches stunted their growth as a team.

However, the opposite occurred with those groups that were determined to have heterogeneous thinking styles. They were initially dysfunctional and less productive ; but once they learned to value and capitalize on the differences on their team, their productivity level soared past the same-minded teams.

The lesson here is clear: although similar viewpoints may seem to encourage team productivity at first, only a wide variety of opinions and attitudes can keep your team thriving in the long run. As Thomas Stewart, former editor of the Harvard Business Review, so aptly put it: “It is often said that sparks from opposing ideas ignite innovation. ” What’s the next step in turning sparks in to a flame?

In our next post, we’ll move on to step two. Still questioning how conflict leads to productivity? Let’s talk, and together we can put together a plan to encourage diversity in perspectives!