We Need to Talk...
About healthy conflict
“The crisis is pretty apparent to everyone…. It manifests itself in the rancour, the contempt, the animosity that we see on different sides of the political divide—that in itself is enough to lay the groundwork for dysfunction. … It manifests in the dysfunctions of government, the almost impossibility to govern in ways that are ethically and politically coherent and oriented toward building a society that lives up to its ideals.”
—James Davison Hunter, coiner of the term “culture wars,” in conversation with Mark Bauerlein on the First Things podcast about his new book, Democracy and Solidarity: On the Cultural Roots of America's Political Crisis.
We need to talk about conflict: interpersonal conflict. What it is, what it isn’t, and why it matters as we come into this U.S. (and possible Canadian) election season. I’ve debated writing about this topic over the past several months, thinking it might be too simplistic. However, I’m writing about it because I believe that, as a society, we’ve forgotten some basic truths.
I’ve been heartened by U.S. Presidential candidate
’s words about being able to disagree and still work together. And no, this isn’t going to be a partisan post. Leave aside for the moment who he did or didn’t endorse that you may or may not like. I mention his name because he is modelling something I was beginning to think we had forgotten as a culture: the ability to work closely with, talk with, and discuss robustly with those with whom we may vigorously disagree.Listen to what Kennedy actually said: “Ultimately the only thing that will save our children and our country is if we choose to love them more than we hate each other. … Instead of vitriol and polarization, I will appeal to the values that unite us, the goals we could achieve if only we weren’t at each other’s throats.”
Healthy conflict?
As well as writing this Substack and coaching authors, I also work as a consultant in the realm of organizational health. We help organizations to become healthier in their workplace culture. We do this, in part, by improving the cohesiveness of organizational leadership teams.
Following the thought of organizational health practitioner Patrick Lencioni,1 we teach that the cohesion of a leadership team is based on the existence of vulnerability-based trust among its members. Vulnerability-based trust means that members of a team—such as the executive leadership of an organization, corporation or business—can say things to each other like, “Hey, I’m not good at this particular piece. What would you recommend?” Or “I need help with this, can I get your input?” Or that most vulnerable of statements, “I made a mistake; I was wrong, and I’m sorry.”
Sound impossible? We routinely help organizational leaders achieve this kind of trust amongst themselves using methods that are practical, relevant and fast. Why does this kind of trust matter? Because vulnerability-based trust is what allows a leadership team to engage in healthy conflict. Healthy conflict, in turn, helps teams to make better decisions more quickly, to commit to those decisions both emotionally and intellectually, and then to hold each other accountable to those decisions so that they can achieve positive results as a team. This progression (in bolded words) is demonstrated by the image below, which shows how vulnerability-based trust is the foundation of cultural health.
With that background, let’s talk about what healthy conflict actually is. I’m convinced it’s a principle that can help our society solve our many complex issues.
Most people tense up at the very mention of the word “conflict.” I believe we’re living in an increasingly conflict-averse society. Much of the current culture seeks to avoid getting “triggered,” embraces “psychological safety” as a self-evident good—too often meaning not having to countenance opposing points of view—and seeks to protect itself from having to even encounter ideas that run contrary to their way of thinking. This is, of course, underscored by the information bubbles created by Internet algorithms.
The Conflict Continuum diagram below shows why this trend is so detrimental to society. Any conflict-averse group or society is living squarely in “artificial harmony.” This is one side of the Conflict Continuum that constitutes “unhealthy” conflict.
Artificial harmony is destructive to both workplace teams and to society. Embracing artificial harmony means we’re keeping the peace for the sake of not rocking the boat. We don’t agree, but we’re not speaking up about our disagreements because we’re afraid of the consequences of disagreeing. Perhaps it’s ridicule, perhaps it’s the response of a friend or colleague who might take issue with our point of view or take us to task. Perhaps we just think that we need to be “nice”—not realizing that there is a false kind of “niceness” that is not loving. Whatever the reason, remaining silent to keep the peace guarantees that all kinds of toxic behaviours will be the result.
Back-channel discussions, hallway conversations, false commitments to “help out,” feet-dragging and other passive-aggressive behaviours are usually the result of this lack of healthy conflict. It’s only when we speak with truth—willing to voice our perspective for the common good and to risk being proven wrong—that we can collectively make good decisions. It takes robust conversation to come to good solutions and decisions.
Why? Because no one of us can understand it all or has it all figured out. Believe it or not, we all need the wisdom of others. We have blind spots, biases, gaps in experience, etc. that keep us from being able to see as broadly as we need to see in order to make good collective decisions.
The book of Proverbs is clear on this: Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed, we’re told.2 In its plain-spoken way, Proverbs continues: “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a person who listens to advice is wise.”3 We’re continually encouraged to seek out other points of view, especially those that will correct us: “Listen to counsel, receive instruction, and accept correction, that you may be wise in the time to come.”4 And: “A wise person will hear and increase in learning, and a person of understanding will acquire wise counsel.…”5
By this point, some readers may be raising objections. “So you want us to have it out with each other? Knock-down, drag-out fights? Arguments? Yelling and name-calling in the board room?”
Ideas, not personalities
No, that’s the other side of conflict (in our diagram above) that is unhealthy or destructive: mean-spirited, personal attacks. It should be obvious that these kinds of actions enter into the realm of destructive relational behaviour, but it seems in our postmodern culture, one can no longer take the understanding of any basic truth for granted. After all, for the past twenty-plus years, much of Internet conversation has consisted of mean-spirited, personal attacks—often from people unwilling to reveal their true identities, which is a type of cowardice.
When conflict devolves to the point where it becomes about personalities, rather than issues, we’ve crossed over the other line from healthy conflict into unhealthy or destructive conflict. Attacking people personally is always hurtful. Sure, some cultures may have a higher tolerance for this, but that doesn’t make it healthy or helpful.
For example, my husband once worked in a particular East coast state in the U.S. where it was common for there to be swearing, name-calling and personal attacks in the boardroom. This was accepted behaviour—but that didn’t make it helpful behaviour. It increased a toxic culture, leading to low morale, low productivity, high confusion, office politics and high turnover amongst employees. Bad decisions were made and significant time and money were lost as a result of this culture of personal attacks. This connection should be obvious. As James Davison Hunter points out in the opening quote, bad behaviour leads to bad results.
As a culture, and even as individuals, we often seem to swing between these two destructive extremes of artificial harmony and mean-spirited, personal attacks. However, there is a whole range of conflict that can occur between these two ends of the conflict continuum that constitutes healthy conflict. The answer, then, is that we need more healthy conflict, not less conflict overall.
We’ve discovered in our work with leadership groups in both Canada and the U.S. that some locales are more prone to artificial harmony. In the same way, we find that Christian organizations are more likely to live in artificial harmony, perhaps mistakenly thinking that to be loving is the same as being “nice.” It isn’t, and if you need a proof-text for that, please see the life of Jesus, who was loving, but was not always “nice”—especially to the religious leaders of His time. He was unafraid to call them out in ways that were truthful and accurate, while not devolving into personal attacks. He saw them from the point of view of the One who created them and who knew who they really, really were made to be: Better people than they were currently being.
In fact, Proverbs also tells us that part of being loving is speaking honestly. Proverbs says that “An honest answer is like a kiss on the lips.”6 When someone we trust challenges us for our good, while we may not initially like it, ultimately, we know that they love us. They have our best at heart and they don’t want us to miss that best by our limited thinking or viewpoint.
We’re also told that it is better to rebuke someone to their face than to hide love. To me, this verse gets to the heart of artificial harmony. Rather than hiding one’s disagreement in the name of being “loving,” it is better to speak out disagreement openly.7 We should be able to trust hard-to-hear words from a friend, and be wary of the one who only says good things to our face.
Multiplying kisses
This message is expanded in Proverbs 27:6: “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.” Having lived in Cairo, Egypt for several years, when I read this verse I experience a very distinct visual image. As is common in Middle-eastern, as well as many other societies, friends of the same gender in Egypt often greet each other with a “kiss” on the cheek. This is actually more of a meeting of cheek or jawbone, with an air-kiss to each side of the face, similar to the custom of some European or Latin American countries.
In Egypt, however, when close friends who haven’t seen each other for a long time want to express how much they have missed each other, these two cheek-kisses will often be extended to four or even six kisses.
In the same way, when someone in Egypt wants to “kiss up” to someone they perceive as having influence, they may also “multiply” the number of kisses upon greeting them. Hence the visual image I get and the words of this verse. Be wary of those who flatter you to your face but who won’t speak the difficult truth that you need to hear.
To his face…
The apostle Paul writes of how he spoke the difficult truth to the apostle Peter several times in his letter to the Galatians: “When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong…. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all…”.8
What is significant in these verses is that Paul did this “to [Peter’s] face” and “in front of everyone.” No artificial harmony here. The truth was too important to play “safe” with. It involved not only the importance of Christ’s death, but the future of the church. Would the church go back to following Jewish laws, or would it instead live in the grace that Jesus had modelled for them? The truth that salvation came not through keeping the Jewish law, but through the life and death of Christ was too important for Paul to keep silent about.
I used to believe that when someone in a group or organization was acting in error, the best practice was to take them aside privately to correct them. My work in organizational health, however, has changed my mind on this.
For the sake of the group, people need to be called up to the better behaviour of their true self in front of the relevant group. Why does this matter? Because the members of a team need to know that they will also be held to this same group accountability. In addition, this demonstrates that all members of the team can hold each other to account, as long as it is done in an issues-oriented, non-personally attacking manner.
Just to be clear, this doesn’t mean publicly shaming people. The scope of accountability needs to be commensurate with the error. For most workplace teams, this probably means within the team on which the employee sits. Paul didn’t call all the Christians in Antioch together to expose Peter. He spoke in front of the group who were discussing the question at the time. And, as I said before, the point of accountability is to call people up to their true, better selves, not to call people out with the purpose of shaming them.
Why does this matter now? I’m particularly concerned for the two cultures I find myself a part of, the U.S. and Canada, as we enter election seasons. We’ve experienced so much polarization. Relationships have been lost and the foundations of our government have been shaken due to the “rancour, contempt and animosity” we’ve allowed our society to fall into. I don’t think I know of a person who hasn’t lost friends during the last fifteen years over something political or politicized. Because of this, many have silenced themselves out of fear. That’s the artificial harmony. It’s also what the enemy wants us to do. If he can’t get us to attack others, he’ll get us to stop speaking the truth out of fear.
The antidote, I believe, is for all of us to speak up as one small voice speaking the truth in love. It’s time to engage again in healthy debate for the good of our nations—possibly even for the good of the free world. We’re dangerously close to losing our freedoms—not only of speech, but the rights that we’ve taken for granted in the U.S. and Canada. We need to speak up vigorously and debate robustly so that we can come to the truth and act upon it. We do this by not backing away from conflict, but by addressing the issues and the poor behaviour, and yet not attacking personalities. If we do this, we’ll be following the greatest model of speaking the truth with love, Jesus Christ.
Your voice is needed, and we’d love to hear it in the comments below. However, if you choose to abandon the voice of love in your comments, remember that you are abandoning all of your beneficial power.
I want to recognize the work of Patrick Lencioni and the Table Group in shaping my point of view on healthy conflict and workplace culture. During 2020 and 2021, my husband and I were privileged to train under Lencioni and some of the Table Group’s principal consultants as part of their Consultants and Practitioners Alliance. I am also a certified Six Types of Working Genius facilitator.
Bible, Proverbs 15:22
Bible, Proverbs 12:15
Bible, Proverbs 19:20
Bible, Proverbs 1:5
Bible, Proverbs 24:26
“Better is open rebuke than hidden love,” Bible, Proverbs 27:5.
Bible, Galatians 2:11, 14
The problem,it seems to me, is this: for there to be respectful disagreement, healthy conflict, whatever, *something has to be more important than for one side to win.* There has to be an acceptance that if your position or proposal is flawed/ incorrect, it’s okay to “lose.” By the same token, the “winner” (whatever that means in context) should not be gloating over or humiliating the loser.
Sadly I see everywhere people and groups who only want to “win” and will not accept *anything* but their narrow definition of winning (acquisition of some kind of power). They also somehow delude themselves that if they win (say an election) their opponents are going to accept that with more grace than they themselves would have in the same situation (LOL). NOPE, the defeated party simply gets to work with increased passion and resentment and a great eagerness to record and amplify *every single mistake the winner makes*, AND OF COURSE THE WINNER WILL MAKE MISTAKES (because they are humans, and possibly not even very nice humans…)
If you truly love and respect your opponent, and share common goals, you will occasionally have to forego an opportunity to humiliate them and/or elevate yourself at their expense. This is not false niceness; it’s valuing something (your shared community? Your mutual goal? Your freaking humanity?) more than *winning* (fleeting, ephemeral power). I think THIS is what we as a society have gotten really bad at, and neglected, and it’s at the root of my disengagement from most politics. People go on and on about issues, about politics, tribes, blah blah, and it’s all very complicated, but at the bottom it’s just people making the same dumb mistakes over and over and wrecking things and ruining their relationships while lying to themselves.
I put my energy where I think it actually makes a difference.
Timely article with a great message. I think you’re right to point out that artificial harmony can be damaging just like a mean spirited attack. I myself am very conflict-averse, but I’m trying to view conflict as a vehicle for honesty, growth and understanding. It’s a work in progress🙂 I also find it difficult to talk about politics and religion with those in my life because it seems that we get our information from such different sources that we are operating in parallel realities. To talk about substantial issues, there are certain parameters that must be agreed on. Not that we shouldn’t try, but the wildly different avenues on the internet make it difficult to find a starting point. I guess that makes your article more important than ever! Thanks for sharing! 🤍 PS I like RFKs messages of unity too!