On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln became the 16th president of the United States. Lincoln could have appointed partisans to lead the nation during a looming crisis. Instead, he created a cabinet composed of highly opinionated, stubborn, and influential leaders.
Lincoln selected former Republican Party rivals for three of the most important cabinet positions. He appointed Democrats to build bipartisan support: All six secretaries were more educated, better known, and had more government experience than Lincoln (Chervinsky, 2020; Goodwin, 2006).
In other words, President Lincoln structured his leadership team to produce conflict. In this post, we will discuss we discuss why leaders should structure productive conflict and how to do it well.
Boat Rockers Versus Bootlickers
Adam Grant is an organizational psychologist at the Wharton School and the author of Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know (2021). He writes, “I’ve watched too many leaders shield themselves from task conflict. They tune out boat-rockers and listen to bootlickers. Research reveals that when firms perform poorly, CEOs who indulge flattery and conformity become overconfident. They stick to their existing strategic plans, which set them on a collision course with failure.”
Many people are uncomfortable around emotional conflict. They often call themselves “people pleasers.” They dislike being around critical, skeptical, and challenging colleagues.
Grant suggests that leaders set the tone for productive conflict by differentiating between intellectual and emotional disagreements. One can be a “people pleaser” who wants to avoid negative emotions while welcoming vigorous intellectual debate over ideas that benefit stakeholders.
Focus on the “North Star”
When managing people in conflict at work, remind participants to focus their arguments on what we are calling the “North Star.” In the case of a nonprofit, the North Star is the organization’s mission. In a for-profit company, the North Star is the strategy approved by the board of directors.
For example, B suggests a new way of dealing with customer complaints. A runs the call center and objects to the idea by saying, “Why fix something if it isn’t broken?” Amid conflict, it is natural for team members to focus on how ideas impact their jobs or their teams. A leader’s role is to move the discussion around the North Star. For example, “The Board has made customer retention a strategic priority. Please focus on how B’s idea will or will not increase customer retention.”
Insist That Participants Frame Arguments in Ordinal Terms
Conflicting perspectives are often framed in binary language. A binary framework is black/white. For example, “Why try to fix something that isn’t broken?” Something either is or is not broken. Framing a response in binary terms tends to polarize discussions.
Leaders can reduce polarization by requiring participants to rate their level of agreement on a scale of 0-10. “A, you are saying that B’s idea would fix a problem that, in your opinion, does not exist. Our North Star is increasing customer satisfaction. A, please assign a number for how critical B’s proposal is in helping us achieve this goal, from 0 (zero impact) to 10 (guaranteed).
“B, would you assign a number for how helpful this idea is for increasing customer satisfaction on the same scale?”
How Versus Why
Grant observes that one way of reducing emotional conflict during discussions is for the leader to ask participants to focus on “how” responses:
“When social scientists ask people why they favor particular policies on taxes, health care, or nuclear sanctions, [people] often doubled down on their convictions. Asking people to explain how these policies would work in practice sometimes activated a rethinking cycle.”
For example, in the conflict between B and A, one side focuses on why the new idea is important, while the other side focuses on why the new idea is irrelevant. Instead of focusing on “why,” the leader can ask A, “If you believe our level of customer satisfaction is 7 and we wish to make it an 8, how would B’s idea achieve this goal or fail to achieve it?”
Another option: “A, you say customer retention is 7. How do you propose we obtain the information to present to our Board of Directors? What other companies can we use as reference points to measure customer retention? How would we get that information?”
Summary and Conclusions
During a crisis, Lincoln structured his cabinet for conflict rather than consensus. This is an important lesson for leaders as they build teams and boards of directors.
Teams are forums to debate ideas that advance the North Star. Leaders should encourage participants to frame opinions in ordinal terms rather than binary. “Why” responses should be discouraged, and “how” responses should be encouraged.