Healthy conflict: Good. Unhealthy conflict: Bad. There endeth the first lessonâŠ
The key, of course, is knowing the difference between the two.
I frequently say that when reasonably intelligent, well-intentioned people disagree, the organization is better served.
By reasonably intelligent, I donât mean an IQ number â just that the person communicating has enough mental snap to understand and discuss the issues at hand. And by well-intentioned, Iâm simply referring to those without some boneheaded personal agenda.
The latter, as youâve likely surmised, is the tough one.
So, weâre working on a complex project with a client. Opinions are buzzing around like mosquitoes during an August Houston evening. Weâre cussing, discussing, arguing, persuading, etc. Generally a good time being had by all⊠and then it happens:
Unhealthy conflict rears its ugly head.
How do we know? Simple⊠conflict bridges from healthy to unhealthy when those involved in a difference are no longer willing or able to consider othersâ views and alternatives, and thereby set up a win-lose confrontation. Enter emotion, stage right.
No longer willing or able to consider othersâ views and alternatives. Even if baked in truth, simmered in fact, and stewed in verifiable data. In other words, weâve begun using emotions alone to decide the fate of the discussion. Logic has left the buildingâŠ
You know how you can tell? You hear phrases like, âYea, well, I just donât agreeâŠâ or âI hear you, I just believe youâre wrong (or whatever emotional outcome is desired).â These, and phrases/words like them, mean weâve entered the unhealthy zone of conflict, and weâve got to find some ways to get back to healthy conflict. For some methods and tools, see my BrazenLeader blog post, same subject.
So, who cares? Why bother? What does it matter? Why should we spend one whit of effort on addressing unhealthy conflict? Well, besides the fact I just successfully used âwhitâ in a sentence (my grandmother would be proud), there are three significant reasons we should be concerned about leadership and healthy conflict in an organization:
Most conflict is born of miscommunications. Thatâs right â the vast majority of conflict we see and enjoy are driven by communications missteps, rather than an argument of facts.
Thatâs why the âLogic has left the buildingâŠâ comment above. Factual arguments seldom lead to unhealthy conflict. Disagreements, yes. Arguments, maybe. Near-violent discussions, sometimes. But unhealthy conflict? Rarely, since the very basis of unhealthy conflict is an emotional attachment to a position. That attachment was probably solidified when someone challenged the position with opinion, not fact.
Understanding needs versus wants is the key to resolution. Most of the time, conflicts occur when we focus on our wants instead of our actual needs. If both parties (or however many are involved) would instead determine and focus on their needs, we could make immediate headway.
âI need all deliveries to be on timeâ is likely a want. âItâs important that deliveries be made with enough time for me to inventory and prepare the parts for installation â about 45 minutes â prior to forwarding to manufacturingâ is an underlying need that drives more timely deliveries. âOn timeâ is a performance standard that doesnât necessarily represent a factual need â a want. âIn time to inventoryâŠâ is a need based on demonstrable fact. See the difference?
Unresolved conflicts degrade trust. Always.
Sometimes we âget overâ a conflict, meaning that we force civility, feign acceptance, and disguise acquiescence as agreement. But the conflict, yet unresolved, still exists. And as long as it exists between people, the level of trust will decline. Since trust is the very currency of leadership, and since enhanced levels of trust allow and encourage discretionary effort, these unresolved conflicts are damaging â to both the leader involved as well as the organization as whole.
When you see a conflict go to the dark side â unhealthy conflict â recognize it for what it is, and address as soon as humanly possible.
Youâll be better for it, as will others.
Exemplary efforts are what we do, as leaders. Critical here when dealing with unhealthy conflict.
Disclaimer: The identities of the characters in the story below have been changed to protect the innocent from possible repercussions by her moronic boss(es).
The military has an acronym for almost everything⊠and for the rest, it has initialisms. Todayâs acronym is BLUF (pronounced bluff) â Bottom Line Up Front. Often in military briefings, you give the boss the BLUF, so they donât have to pay attention to the rest of what you say.
Todayâs BLUF is: You donât have to spend money to piss people off; weak leaders can do it for free.
When I was talking to someone I really care about (sheâs the innocent I mentioned earlier), she told me about a token of appreciation sheâd received at work that day. I asked her if everyone received the same token and if it made her feel appreciated.
Her answer was not surprising: Yes and no, respectively.
The token was, incredibly, a pair of socks with the company logo on them. Maybe not incredible to you, but I was certainly incredulous. I couldnât help but share my initial impression of the token:
âWho the hell thought this was a good idea?â
I guess as God rains on the good and evil alike, so the boss gave socks to the high performers and the slackers alike. Heavy sigh.
Of the people I shared my initial impression with, only my friends in Corporate America agreed with me. Those in local government positions scolded me and told me it was the thought that counted, while those in federal government service made it clear they didnât have the budget for tokens of appreciation. Why was I not surprised (again)?
Somewhere there was a chain of events that led enough people in this organization to convince the Emperor he would look splendid in a company logo-emblazoned pair of socks. And then they began to believe that after 18 months of working in the h—–care industry during a global pandemic, their employees deserved a pair of socks and would appreciate them because the Emperor already had a pair.
Iâm a little disappointed for her that not once during the previous 18 months had anyone up the food chain expressed their appreciation to that someone I really care about for working in an environment with a high risk of exposure to COVID-19 â not even providing them with company logo N-95 masks â but they thought giving them a pair of socks was a good idea.
I must be missing something. Now of all times, leaders need to make their employees know theyâre appreciated for the effort theyâve made over the last year and a half to keep the company up and running successfully. What follows are some nuggets I thought were intuitive but clearly arenât to everyone.
If we want to know what makes our teams feel appreciated, we have to have heart-to-heart conversations with them and actively listen to discern the answer⊠or we can ask them directly. There are ways to do both more effectively than guess, and it takes time, trust and approachability or weâll never get the answer.
If we give the same token of appreciation to everyone, itâs not a token of appreciation, unless weâre just thankful that people still choose to work for us. Itâs one thing to give everyone the same kind of shirt with a logo to wear at work or elsewhere (thatâs called marketing and brand recognition), but socks? Give me a break.
If we have money to spend on worthless trinkets for everyone, we have money to give something meaningful to a few (hopefully our top performers).
Just because our boss (thatâs the moron I mentioned earlier) thinks itâs a good idea â or even just an okay idea â we donât have to hold our tongues and embolden them to convince the Emperor he/she will look good in their new socks.
Bottom line: You donât have to spend money to piss people off. I suspect someone I really care about will put the socks in the company logo backpack they gave her a couple of years ago, and Iâll never see them again.
Do you know what makes your team feel appreciated?
Being normal is an overrated concept. No one actually fits the definition, since we all have our own, so no one is really normal. Weâre all just somewhere on the continuum of abnormality. Some of you are much higher on the spectrum than others (you know who you are), but weâre all in this crazy, non-normal environment together.
And that was even true before the apocalypse. Look at us now⊠normal is such a distant memory, Iâm not sure weâd know it if we could touch it. And since we canât, thereâs no since in lamenting its loss.
Since, even when things were normal⊠they actually werenât. Follow me here, I promise Iâm going somewhere.
Thereâs lots of talk these days about âreturning to normal,â and âgetting back to normal,â and âI canât wait until itâs normal again.â
Therein lies the problem â it was never normal to begin with.
By that, I mean that if normal is (according to Webster) an adjective, then:
nor·mal | \ ËnÈŻr-mÉl \ Conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern:
characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine; ânormal
working hoursâ âunder normal circumstancesâ âIt was just a normal, average
day.â âHe had a normal childhood.â
âConforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern.â Actually, weâve never had much of that, if you really think about it. The organizations we serve, well, theyâre always trying to grow and improve â to get better. All of that requires change, which by definition, doesnât fit the description of ânormal.â
According to that definition above:
Change isnât normal.
Growth isnât normal.
Our families arenât normal (Welcome to the dysfunctional zone).
Our hobbies arenât normal. (Ever hit the exact same golf shot twice? On purpose?)
All in all, ânormalâ is something of a myth; a bill of goods weâve bought into so we can complain when things start changing and we have little control over the change.
Ahh, now itâs starting to make sense. Weâre ok with change that we can easily predict and/or control â that seems normal to us. Weâre ok with change that provides us a benefit, even if we didnât see it coming â that seems normal also.
What we donât like, and what we view as total out of the normal, is change that we neither control nor benefit from, especially when itâs taking us to places unknown. That intense discomfort we feel inside, that absolute lack of control or expectation, has us wishing for the âgood old daysâ when we could see that predictable, expected, beneficial change coming down the highway.
Well, I hate to be the bearer of the obvious, but this apocalypse took us so far from our comfort zone that we long for the days of old â the days of comfort â not really the days of ânormal.â
So, when we find ourselves pining away for âback to normal,â realize what weâre really asking for: constant, never-ending change that we either can control, reasonably expect, or personally benefit from. You know, the stuff we used to have.
This is significant for leadership. From our perspective, things were normal before March 2020. Lots of changes â some good, some bad; some expected, some âwhat the hellâŠ!?â But it was our normal. Then.
The apocalypse hit â now we had new normal. Masks, physical distancing, hospitalizations, elbow-bumps, vaccines, handwashing (does it bother anyone but me that handwashing was a new thing for so many?). These things became our regular pattern; things that were considered usual, typical, or routine. You know⊠normal.
Today, and going forward, we have normal again. Itâs the Now Normal. Different from the pre-Covid normal, which wasnât really; different from the pandemic operations normal, which wasnât really. We have our Now Normal, which isnât all that normal. But itâs a more comfortable set of changes⊠a more expected routine or set of activities.
And we seem to be pleased itâs coming our way, though Iâd caution that all normal, including this Now Normal, have their share of âoh shitâ experiences.
I didnât have enough time.  If only I had moreâŠ
Thatâs not my job.  Someone else will do it.
I donât know how.  I donât think the boss said/meant that.
The list is endless. The bottom lineâŠÂ Itâs not my fault!
And therein lies the crux of the problem: Accountability isnât about blame, itâs about ownership.
We recently conducted a workshop on Leadership Accountability. Powerful, uncomfortable stuff. People squirming in chairs, eyes shifting around, not making eye contact⊠even being accountable for understanding accountability was difficult.
Damn. Howâd we get here?
First, letâs discuss what Accountability is in the leadership context, what it isnât, and what it looks like when worn correctly.
(These are my definitions, so just bear with me. If you want to use your definitions, write your own article.)
âLeadership Accountability is being responsible for the results of your decisions or actions without demand or force and prepared to explain them when you are asked.
Think OWNERSHIP.
Like owning a car. No one blames you for owning a car (well, some of you may push that a bit), you just own it. If itâs clean, thatâs on you. If it runs well, thatâs on you. If the oil isnât changed regularly (you know who you are), thatâs on you as well.
In other words, youâre completely accountable for that car. You arenât to blame for the car, youâre simply accountable.
So, think ownership.
We keep using âresponsibilityâ when discussing Accountability⊠are they the same thing?
No. Hereâs something to chew on to distinguish between Responsibility and Accountability:
Responsibility is taking ownership of activities. A person who completes the tasks required for their job or role is responsible.
Accountability is taking ownership of results. A person who knows what needs to be accomplished and does what it takes to get the right results is accountable.
Weâre responsible for tasks, accountable for results. No, thatâs not just a play on words, either. It brings us to another point: Accountability is one-deep.
Many people can own responsibilities, butâŠ
Accountability is one-deep
Many managers can be responsible for submitting their numbers to a Director. That director, however, is accountable for that report. If one of those managers doesnât do their job, that director is still accountable for the report.
Only one person is ultimately accountable for any result, though many may have a responsibility to assist.
Now, just to mess with your head⊠that same manager may have had an accountability to submit that report, but itâs only an accountability for that manager â the director still has overall accountability for the report.
Things that make you go âhmmmmâŠâ
To further unpack this, we must understand that Accountability doesnât mean punishment. Accountability is a willingness to accept responsibility for our own actions. We too often use Accountability and âholding someone accountableâ as negative events. They arenât, when done correctly.
First, you own accountability yourself. No one can âholdâ you accountable for anything. They can force, coerce or threaten you to get you to do something, our even punish you when you donât; but remember our definition, being forced doesnât count.
What we can do, however, is assist others and ask for help ourselves.
We can help others with their accountability by doing what weâre supposed to do, respectfully reminding, and helping out wherever we can.
We can also ask others to help us with our accountabilities. Give people permission to be our eyes, ears, Jiminy Cricket or whatever floats your boat to help us remember and follow through. Itâs not forced if you asked for help â itâs simply smart and resourceful.
So, how do we foster better accountability within our hallowed halls? Itâs not hard, if we can get past the blaming gameâŠ
Clear communications. People know whatâs expected and why itâs necessary.
Meaningful Consequences. Focus on positive consequences, negative/punishment is indicative of a failure somewhere. (this will be another article â itâs a big deal)
Model accountability. Leaders set the tone. Speak accountability; demonstrate accountability. âDo as I say, not as I doâ simply will not work here.
The âModel Accountabilityâ deserves more info⊠we model Accountability when we accept and embrace our own Accountability. Words like âI was wrong,â âI made a mistake,â âThatâs on me,â and other similar statements imply accountability.
Think about it â openly accepting accountability is generally a positive thing and has a constructive impact on others.
And be prepared to explain why, because thatâs how we learn. Use reasons, not excuses. I could write a boring treatise on the difference, but Iâll use my simple mindâs clarification:
Reasons include my action or inaction as the center of the failure,
Excuses use another person, inanimate object or intangible as the center/cause of failure.
Give reasons, not excuses. We all learn, grow, and improve when doing so.
Iâve crammed four workshop hours into this brief article, and those four hours could easily have been two days. Accountability, though simple, has the constant complexity of peopleâs emotions and fear. Makes for some heady stuff but hoped to give you a brief overview here.
Happy to share more if you like, just ask, comment or complain and we can discuss. As always, you can reach me at kevinb@triangleperformance.com.
And Be Brazen, remembering that Grace and Accountability can coexist.
Though leadership is always my preferred topic, sometimes we need to get into the management weeds. The blocking and tackling that is so necessary for success in leadership is sometimes overlooked for more of the sexy, fun stuff.
Itâs important, though. And likely no management concept is more important â or more ignored â than that of appropriate Span of Control.
Whatâs the perfect number of direct reports? People who report directly to you? How many employees should any one manager have working for them; does it matter what âkindsâ of employees?
I get these questions a lot, so thought Iâd help shed some light.
This challenge, of course, refers to whatâs called Span of Control, and though there are always âuniqueâ circumstances that defeat any rule, there are some decent historical guidelines.
Span of Control isnât simply dependent on each individual; itâs a basic limitation of all managers as it describes only their direct reports. Though a manager can effectively âcontrolâ any number of people if there are enough levels in between, not so when it comes to direct reports. That capacity is finite.
âŠand hereâs the deal: donât give me this song and dance bullshit about how this doesnât apply to you, or that youâre somehow different. It does, and you ainât.
Appropriate span of control refers to those you can effectively and successfully manage, not just have on an org chart. If you have 10+ direct reports, they simply cannot be receiving the individual attention that each one needs. There arenât enough minutes in the day.
I may not be a math major, but I do own a calculator.
Be Brazen, and remember that Grace and Accountability can coexist.
 an accountability to submit that report, but itâs only an accountability for that manager â the director still has overall accountability for the report.
