What conflicts help in work and how to argue for the benefit of the case

Disputes are often viewed as something unconstructive and dangerous. Perhaps the fact is that they usually mean quarrels and showdowns. But conflicts can also be constructive, says Adam Grant, a psychologist and professor at the Wharton School of Business.

In the book Think Again. The power of knowledge about not knowing, ”he explains why disagreement is not a threat, but an opportunity to learn. With the permission of the publishing house "MYTH", Lifehacker publishes an excerpt from the fourth chapter. It talks about the value of meaningful debate.

---

The two youngest sons in the bishop's large family always did everything together. Together they began to publish a newspaper and assembled their own printing press. We opened a bicycle workshop and began to produce our own bicycles. And, having invested many years in solving a seemingly impossible task, they invented the first airplane.

Wilber and Orville Wright became interested in David McCullough, The Wright Brothers (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2015); Tom D. Crouch, The Bishop's Boys: A Life of Wilbur and Orville Wright (New York: W. W. Norton, 2003); James Tobin, To Conquer the Air (New York: Free Press, 2003); Peter L. Jakab and Rick Young, eds., The Published Writings of Wilbur and Orville Wright (Washington, DC: Smithsonian, 2000); Fred Howard, Wilbur and Orville: A Biography of the Wright Brothers (New York: Ballantine, 1988).

flying machines when my father brought home a toy helicopter, but it broke down. And then they made their own. Then we moved from joint games to joint work, together we rethought the possibility of flight. There was never a rivalry between them, as is the case with brothers. They even "thought together," according to Wilber. And although the project was launched on his behalf, the authorship for all inventions was divided in half. When it came time to decide who to fly to Kitty Hawk, a coin was thrown.

New thinking often grows out of old connections. Comedians Tina Fey and Amy Poehler have known each other since their youth - they immediately became friendsJesse David Fox, “The History of Tina Fey and Amy Poehler’s Best Friendship,” Vulture, December 15, 2015 in an improvisation class. Musical harmony in the Beatles was formed even earlier - in high school. Minutes after a mutual friend introduced them to each other, Paul McCartney was already teachingMichael Gallucci, "The Day John Lennon Met Paul McCartney", Ultimate Classic Rock, July 6, 2015 John Lennon's guitar tune.

Ben & Jerry Ice Cream Ice Cream Company BeginsRosanna Greenstreet, "How We Met: Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield", Independent, May 28, 1995 from the founders' acquaintance in a physical education lesson in the seventh grade. It seems that for a common cause, only good understanding is needed. But in reality, everything, as always, is much more complicated.

One of the leading experts in conflicts - Organizational psychologist from Australia Karen Etty Jen. By conflict, we usually mean Karen A. Jehn, “A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict,” Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (1995): 256–82. relationship problems - emotional clashes, full of mutual irritation and aggression, and even rudeness. I am sick and tired of you. I’ll say in short, so that it dawns on you, you stupid pig-muzzle. You are only in the toilet "Busy!" shout.

Etty also highlighted a task conflict, that is, a clash of ideas and opinions. Arguments like this erupt when we decide which of candidates take to work, where to go for dinner and name the child Gertrude or Quasar. The question is whether the consequences of collisions of both types are different.

Not so long ago, I asked the participants of more than a hundred new teams in Silicon Valley about this, and several times in the first six months of their joint work. Even if they were constantly cursing and disagreeing about anything, they had a common opinion about the type of conflict. After completing projects, managers evaluated the teams' performance.

Low-productivity teams started out with interpersonal rather than task-based disagreements. Employees immediately got involved in quarrel and were so engrossed in mutual enmity that it never came to work-related discussions. In some cases, it took months to build relationships, and when people finally started talking about key decisions, it was too late to change direction.

What happened in the high productivity groups? As you can imagine, in the beginning they had few interpersonal conflicts, and during the time of their joint work, their number did not increase. But task conflicts immediately arose - and the employees did not hesitate to challenge each other's points of view. Having come to a common opinion, they chose the direction and worked. If the situation became tense again, it was discussed again.

Total spent Frank R. C. de Wit, Lindred L. Greer, and Karen A. Jehn, “The Paradox of Intragroup Conflict: A Meta-analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology 97 (2012): 360–90. over a hundred studies of conflict types involving over eight thousand teams. A meta-analysis of these studies has shown that interpersonal conflicts negatively affect labor productivity, and task tasks are useful, since they lead to an increase in creativity and informed decisions.

For example, there is evidence that mild task conflicts in the early stages brought original ideas to Chinese tech companies. Jiing-Lih Farh, Cynthia Lee, and Crystal I. C. Farh, "Task Conflict and Creativity: A Question of How Much and When," Journal of Applied Psychology 95 (2010): 1173–80. , Dutch delivery services Carsten K. W. De Dreu, “When Too Little or Too Much Hurts: Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship between Task Conflict and Innovation in Teams,” Journal of Management 32 (2006): 83-107. and American hospitals Robert S. Dooley and Gerald E. Fryxell, “Attaining Decision Quality and Commitment from Dissent: The Moderating Effects of Loyalty and Competence in Strategic Decision-Making Teams, Academy of Management Journal 42 (1999): 389–402. . One of the teams came Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, Jean L. Kahwajy, and L. J. Bourgeois III, “How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight,” Harvard Business Review, July – August 1997, 77–85. to the conclusion that "the absence of conflicts is not harmony, but indifference."

Interpersonal conflicts, among other things, are destructive because they interfere with rethinking. In emotional skirmishes with the transition to personalities, people tend to passionately preach their ideas, viciously accuse opponents and reject everything that does not fit into their picture of the world.

The task conflict is constructive provided diversity opinions that keep you from entering the cycle of arrogance and help you remain humble, doubtful, and interested in something new. This leads to rethinking and brings you closer to the truth without harming the relationship.

The ability to handle constructive conflict is an important skill that many never learn.

Problems begin at an early age: in order not to injure the child, parents sort things out behind closed doors. But research has shown that the frequency of fighting between adults does not affect the academic, social and emotional development of children.

It matters how respectful a mother and father behave in times of conflict, not how often they have disagreements. Children whose parents discuss controversial issues constructively feel calmer in elementary school, and in subsequent years demonstrate Kathleen McCoy, E. Mark Cummings, and Patrick T. Davies, “Constructive and Destructive Marital Conflict, Emotional Security and Children’s Prosocial Behavior,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 50 (2009): 270–79. a desire to help and compassion towards classmates.

A constructive argument is not just a sign of being civilized. He develops creative vein. A classic study found that the most creative architects, as opposed to their tech-savvy but less resourceful classmates, had a family Donald W. Mackinnon, "Personality and the Realization of Creative Potential," American Psychologist 20 (1965): 273–81. more friction.

They usually grew Paula Olszewski, Marilynn Kulieke, and Thomas Buescher, “The Influence of the Family Environment on the Development of Talent: A Literature Review, Journal for the Education of the Gifted 11 (1987): 6–28. in conditions of "tense but reliable", as described Robert S. Albert, ed., Genius & Eminence (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1992). their psychologist Robert Albert: “The houses of future representatives of the creative professions do not have peace and harmony, but basically“ rattlesnake ”." Their parents were not prone to physical violence and abuse, but often argued. They did not tell the children that they should be “seen but not heard,” but on the contrary, they encouraged the ability to stand up for themselves. Children learned to speak up and accept objections. This is how Wilber and the Orville Wright interacted.

By saying that they think together, the brothers meant that they were discussing. Although their father served as a bishop in the local church, atheist books were in the home library, and reading and discussion was encouraged. The brothers developed the courage to stand up for their own ideas and the ability to fail disputewithout deviating from their position.

Solving common problems, the brothers debated not for hours, but for weeks and months.

The incessant disagreement was benign — the brothers liked it because it spurred their thinking. "I love to snag with Orv," Wilber admitted. The most passionate and lengthy argument led them to rethink the key assumption that prevented man from soaring in the sky.

The fate of the saint

As far back as I can remember, I've always tried to smooth out rough edges. Perhaps because in high school I was expelled from a friendly company, or maybe it is hereditary or began after divorce parents. Be that as it may, psychologists for this character trait, the most common in the world, have Lauri A. Jensen-Campbell, Jennifer M. Knack, and Haylie L. Gomez, "The Psychology of Nice People", Social and Personality Psychology Compass 4 (2010): 104; Robert R. McCrae and Antonio Terraciano, "National Character and Personality," Current Directions in Psychological Science 15 (2006): 156–61. name - compliance. Compromising people are welcoming, friendly, polite - in Canada Analyzed over 40 million tweets, the most common in American posts the words are abusive (sh * t, b * tch, hate and damn), and the Canadians have “thank you”, “excellent”, “good” and "Certainly". For more details see Bryor Snefjella, Daniel Schmidtke, and Victor Kuperman, “National Character Stereotypes Mirror Language Use: A Study of Canadian and American Tweets,” PLoS ONE 13 (2018): e0206188. everyone is like that.

I try to avoid the slightest disagreement. When it's cold in a taxi due to the air conditioning turned on, I can't ask the driver to turn it off and silently freeze until I start chattering my teeth. When they stepped on my foot, I used to readily apologize for the fact that she was on the wrong path. In students' comments about me, the phrase “too tolerant of stupid comments” is most often mentioned.

Disputants are often critical, distrustful, and ask uncomfortable questions, and are more likely to become Henk T. van der Molen, Henk G. Schmidt, and Gerard Kruisman, "Personality Characteristics of Engineers", European Journal of Engineering Education 32 (2007): 495-501; Gidi Rubinstein, “The Big Five among Male and Female Students of Different Faculties,” Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005): 1495-503. engineers and lawyers. The conflict does not just bother them, they seem to draw energy from it. Inveterate debaters prefer Stéphane Côté and D. S. Moskowitz, “On the Dynamic Covariation between Interpersonal Behavior and Aff ect: Prediction from Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Agreeableness, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 (1998): 1032–46. chat debate. For this reason, they are notoriously infamous: they are considered naggers who oppose any idea, and Dementors who suck the joy out of any meeting. But, studying the Pixar team, I came Personal interviews with Brad Bird, November 8, 2018, and April 28, 2020; Nicole Grindle, October 19, 2018, and March 17, 2020; and John Walker, November 21, 2018, and March 24, 2020; "The Creative Power of Misfits", WorkLife with Adam Grant, March 5, 2019; Hayagreeva Rao, Robert Sutton, and Allen P. Webb, “Innovation Lessons from Pixar: An Interview with Oscar-Winning Director Brad Bird,” McKinsey Quarterly, April 1, 2008; The Making of "The Incredibles" directed by Rick Butler, Pixar, 2005; Alec Bojalad, “The Incredibles 2: Brad Bird on Family, Blu-Ray Extras, and More,” Den of Geek, October 24, 2018. to a completely opposite conclusion.

In 2000, Pixar was at its peak. With the help of computers, employees reimagined animation in their first blockbuster Toy Story and produced two fresh hits. However, the founders of the studio were not going to rest on their laurels. To success did not become a routine, they invited director Brad Bird.

He had just released his critically acclaimed debut at the box office, and he was eager to tackle something big and bold. When Bird laid out his concept, Pixar's CTO rejected his proposal, saying it would take a decade and $ 500 million to complete.

Brad was not going to give up. He gathered the studio renegades, who were considered dissatisfied with everyone and everything, the eternal debaters. Some called them "black sheep", and someone - "pirates." Brad warned them that no one believed in the project. Four years later, his team not only released the most difficult Pixar film, but also reduced the production cost per minute. The Incredibles earned the company $ 631 million in revenue from international screenings and won an Oscar for Best Animated Feature.

Pay attention to what Brad didn't do. He was not looking for compliant. Yes, they make a great support group, they will always praise and cheer you up. However, for rethinking, completely different people are needed who will not take anything for granted, point out blind spots and help fix flaws. They will initiate a cycle of rethinking, forcing others to be humble, doubt their opinion, and seek new information.

Ideal candidates are debaters because they are not afraid to criticize conventional methods and force Jeffery A. LePine and Linn Van Dyne, “Voice and Cooperative Behavior as Contrasting Forms of Contextual Performance: Evidence of Differential Relationships with Big Five Personality Characteristics and Cognitive Ability ", Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (2001): 326–36. overestimate us all. Such people are more likely to speak out against - especially if the leader does not listen to them. Samuel T. Hunter and Lily Cushenbery, “Is Being a Jerk Necessary for Originality? Examining the Role of Disagreeableness in the Sharing and Utilization of Original Ideas, Journal of Business and Psychology 30 (2015): 621–39. - and enter Leslie A. DeChurch and Michelle A. Marks, “Maximizing the Benefits of Task Conflict: The Role of Conflict Management,” International Journal of Conflict Management 12 (2001): 4-22. into task conflicts. They, like Dr. House from the series of the same name and editor-in-chief Miranda Priestley from The Devil Wears Prada, make unpleasant but insightful remarks that we don't want but need to hear.

It is difficult to get along with disputants, but it is possible - under certain conditions.

According to research in oil and technology companies, dissatisfaction contributes to Jing Zhou and Jennifer M. George, “When Job Dissatisfaction Leads to Creativity: Encouraging the Expression of Voice,” Academy of Management Journal 44 (2001): 682–96. creativity only if employees are satisfied with their work and feel supported, and inconsistency with the corporate culture is more likely to bring Amir Goldberg et al., “Fitting In or Standing Out? Th e Tradeoff s of Structural and Cultural Embeddedness, American Sociological Review 81 (2016): 1190-222. benefit if its carriers have good relationships with colleagues.

Pixar had experience working with talented extraordinary people before Byrd. But previous films about toys, insects and monsters were simple in terms of animation. But the whole movie with a superhero man exceeded the capabilities of computer animation at the time, so Brad's idea was initially rejected. So he found Joeri Hofmans and Timothy A. Judge, “Hiring for Culture Fit Doesn’t Have to Undermine Diversity,” Harvard Business Review, September 18, 201 their society of debaters for task conflicts and rethinking.

He gathered like-minded people in the hall and said that, unlike some bureaucrats and formalists, he believed in them. After that, he made every effort to get ideas from them. “I want to work with the dissatisfied, because they know the best, they just haven’t found their way yet,” Brad recalled. - Like cars that did not get to the race, whose wheels are spinning idle in the garage. Open this garage and they will rush you far, far away. "

The Pirates from Pixar did not lose heart and found budget alternatives to expensive methods and workarounds for difficult problems. When it came time to draw the Incredibles, they did not pore over the complex anatomically precise muscle joints, but came up with the idea of ​​combining ovals that mimic the shape of the body.

I asked Brad how he could see such potential in these people, and he replied that he was one of them. As a child, dining with friends, he was surprised at the well-bred conversations about a day at school.

The Byrd family got excited at the table, argued and spoke openly. Brad thought it was stressful, but interesting, and this is how he behaved in the Disney studio, where he began his career. From an early age, he learned from the old masters of animation, who put quality above all else, and was upset that the generation that came to replace them did not live up to the old standards. Within a few months of work, Brad criticized the management for the lack of originality and lowering the quality bar. He was advised to keep quiet and mind his own business. He disobeyed and was fired.

I have seen many leaders who have fenced off from task conflicts. After gaining power, they silence troublemakers and listen to sycophants. They politicize, surround themselves with agreeable and fall under the influence of sweet-tongued flatterers. Studies show that when a company is doing poorly, it is flattering and conformable. leaders fall into arrogance. They cling to current strategic plans and do not want to change anything, following a straight line to failure.

From those who criticize our view of things, we learn Sun Hyun Park, James D. Westphal, and Ithai Stern, “Set Up for a Fall: The Insidious Effects of Flattery and Opinion Conformity toward Corporate Leaders,” Administrative Science Quarterly 56 (2011): 257-302. more than from singing along. Strong leaders listen to criticism and grow stronger. Weak ones drive critics away and become even weaker. This is not only the people in power. In theory, we agree with this principle, but in practice we underestimate the disputants.

In one experiment, when a partner criticized a participant a lot, he asked him to replace him. In different companies, when an employee received Francesca Gino, "Research: We Drop People Who Give Us Critical Feedback", Harvard Business Review, September 16, 2016 unflattering reviews from colleagues, then avoided them or completely stopped all communication, and over the next year, his productivity decreased even more.

Some organizations are aware of this and create a culture of controversy. From time to time, the Pentagon and the White House holdWilliam Safire, "On Language: Murder Board at the Skunk Works", New York Times, October 11, 1987 meetings with the apt name "firing squad", where a commission not inclined to be polite spreads plans and candidates to smithereens.

Company X - Google's "disruptive technology factory" - hasDerek Thompson, "Google X and the Science of Radical Creativity", The Atlantic, November 2011 a rapid assessment team that makes suggestions for rethinking: each participant independently considers ideas and skips only the most innovative, but at the same time feasible.

In the field of science, these tasks are performed by peer review: anonymous articles are reviewed by independent experts. I will never forget the refusal, the author of which advised me to read the article by Adam Grant. Uncle Adam Grant is me.

As I write this book, I gather my community of debaters and ask them to criticize every page. I've come to the conclusion that values ​​and personality matter, so I'm looking for people who are inclined to give rather than take. The best critics come from generous debaters: they strive The perception of criticism depends as much on the criticizing person as on the content. In one experiment, participants were 40% better at responding to criticism with the comment, "I'm only telling you this because I think you are capable of more." Accepting a bitter truth is surprisingly easy when the speaker believes in you and wishes you success. For more details see David Yeager et al., “Breaking the Cycle of Mistrust: Wise Interventions to Provide Critical Feedback across the Racial Divide,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143 (2014): 804-24. to improve the result, and not to amuse your pride. They "nag" not out of insecurity, but because they care. They are strict but fair.

Ernest Hemingway said The Cambridge Companion to Hemingway, ed. Scott Donaldson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) : "The greatest gift of a good writer is a built-in shock-proof hack detector." For me, such a detector is a team of critics. It turns out a kind of fight club with a plus sign. The main rule is: it is impolite to avoid controversy.

Silence diminishes the value of opinions and the ability to conduct civilized polemics.

Brad Bird is also guided by this principle. His clashes with producer John Walker are legendary. While working on The Incredibles, they fought over every detail of the looks, right down to the hairstyles: how high should Mr. Exceptional's bald patches be and how long his daughter's hair should be.

One day Brad wanted the baby to liquefy to a jelly state, but John resolutely objected. It's too hard to draw and they were already behind schedule. “I'm trying to guide you towards completion,” John said, laughing. - Lead over the finish line. Bumping his fist, Brad retorted: "Yes, from the very beginning, I lead us to the finish line."

In the end, Walker still insisted on his own. “I love working with John, he says all the bad things to my face,” says Brad. - It's good that we have different opinions. It's good we're arguing. This is good for the result. "

The controversy helped Brad win two Oscars, taught him a lot and made him a better leader. As for John, he did not ban the jelly-like baby, but simply suggested that Brad put the idea on hold for a while. Indeed, when the sequel came out fourteen years later, the baby turned to jelly during a fight with a raccoon. As my kids joke, this is the toughest scene.

Looking at reality without prejudice and being ready to change your views are valuable skills that will come in handy not only in school, but also in work. Adam Grant will show you how you can rethink your decisions and critically assess reality.

To buy a book