In the last newsletter, I talked about the importance of using our anger as a source of ideas.
To give continuity to this thought, in this newsletter I wish to talk about a more pragmatic way to use our anger: harnessing conflicts.
Before you jump to any conclusions, I’m talking about good conflicts -after all, when everyone engages in tepid agreement is unlikely to generate much in the way of creative sparks. In other words, we need some disagreement to keep the juice flowing.
In a Stanford study, professor Kathleen Eisenhardt and her colleagues found that working groups with low levels of conflict tended to produce ineffective and uncreative solutions. But teams who engaged in lots of angry, divisive conflict were not creative, either; their energies were consumed by negative emotions.
In her brilliant newsletter Science of Creativity, Annie Murphy Paul listed five ways to foster what she called “creative abrasion”:
Recognize and play up your own distinctiveness
We often forget how deeply different people are. In a group, however, conformity pressures often lead us to assume a bland universality of outlook. Decades of research show that group members tend to talk about the information they share in common—leaving unmentioned the singular knowledge that emerges from individual expertise. To generate creative abrasion, think about what only you know, and say that.
Stake out a strong and authentic position
Strongly-stated views make things happen: they enliven the debate, stimulate powerful counter-arguments, and produce more numerous and more original solutions. But for this kind of conflict work, it has to be real—rooted in genuine differences of opinion. Research led by UC-Berkeley psychologist Charlan Nemeth has found that having a team member play the role of devil’s advocate doesn’t produce the same kind of conversational electricity.
Throw away those familiar brainstorming instructions
Most of us have been told that during a brainstorming session, it’s important to refrain from criticizing any ideas that emerge, lest we shut down the process of free association. However, research shows the groups who are instructed to engage in active debate and critique actually produce more original ideas than those who follow the no-criticism rule. Though we may worry that criticism will “shut things down,” studies suggest that it is actually the desire for consensus that leads to premature closure.
(I particularly do not enjoy brainstorming sessions for a lot of -grounded- reasons. If you want to know why, drop me a message.)
Make sure it doesn’t get personal
Karen Jehn, a professor of management at Melbourne Business School in Australia, makes a useful distinction between relationship conflict and task conflict. Relationship conflict exists when there is tension, animosity, and annoyance among members within a group; task conflict exists when there are disagreements among group members about the content of the tasks being performed. Jehn found that “non-routine” tasks were beneficial, producing better outcomes. Relationship conflict, on the other hand, was always detrimental. The ideal is a low level of relationship conflict and a moderate level of task conflict.
Be flexible enough to allow for convergence
Eventually, contention has to give way to what researchers call “convergence”—the achievement of an agreed-upon solution. According to Stanford’s Robert Sutton, we should strive for “strong opinions, weakly held.” The practice of creative abrasion entails allowing our ideas to get roughed up—changed, enhanced—through contact with other ideas. Sutton also puts it this way: “People should fight as if they are right, and listen as if they are wrong.”
What about you? How do you deal with your conflicts?