You are in the middle of an argument on how to proceed. Maybe it’s an argument on what a requirement means, or what the customer actually meant. Or maybe it’s an argument over how to execute the project, Agile vs a Waterfall methodology. Whatever the argument is you now find yourself in conflict. The question always, is how will you, feeling caught in the middle and wanting to do the right thing, manage this conflict?
Over the years in my role as a leader in software development I’ve witnessed the rise and fall of many trends, processes, ways of doing things. I’ve often thought to myself about how we build products and the difficult challenges we face in the process. One of the most mis-understood parts of the development process is the role conflict plays, the good of it as well as the bad.
Let’s make it clear from the start, unlike greed, conflict is good. The critical point to consider is that conflict can come in two flavors, good or bad, positive or negative. Which type of conflict you engage in will determine whether you’re building good product with all the variations being considered, or if you’re building bad product, with little to no compromise, diversity of thought, or dimensionalized consideration with regard to what the customer wants. In fact, truth be told if you’re engaging in deep negative conflict odds are you’re not going to build anything at all, at least not anything any customer would truly want.
Let’s remember the hallmark of the critical thinker. The hallmark of the critical thinker is the sincere ability to internalize the perspective of others, most especially when that perspective is diametrically or even violently opposed to your own.
What does this mean? It means you may really not like the way Robert thinks, talks, much of anything that you sometimes think of as spewing out of Robert’s mouth. However, if you be an always aspiring critical thinker you know you owe it to the process and to the customer to truly step into Robert’s mental framework, see from his perspective, and ask yourself the critical thinker’s everyday simple questions.
Why is Robert saying what he is saying? Are we both clear on What we are trying to produce? When is always a critical factor on How we do our work, is this a challenge between us? Are we both clear on Who should be working on this product and are we both on the same page regarding Who we are delivering to? Where are we doing this work? Are we in agreement on the environment as well as all the players critical to this What?
Note that such questions will always require you to lean into discomfort and check yourself for negativity. Leave your attitude at the door and see if you can truly find common ground with whomever you’re diametrically opposed.
The conflict you’re engaged in can either be an opportunity for positive engagement and a point from which you both grow and together implement a powerful solution. Or, it can be an opportunity for negativity, and though you may deliver something, the broken and flayed body parts will tell the tale of horrid execution and deadlines that were literally hit through much pain and discomfort. With morale low and ideas dwindling each successive milestone reached through the prism of negative conflict will only build a house of cards that at some point, will all fall down.
As we build ever more increasingly complex systems and products that require more and more people to contribute real ideas and innovation it becomes ever more imperative that we ask each other those simple critical thinking questions and embrace the different diverse and divergent perspectives that come to light. Though those differing perspectives may create conflict, if we remain positive in intent we can freely say that it is a good thing. Through positive conflict, we can achieve more. We just have to commit to understanding each other, commit to accepting varying perspectives, and thereby commit to engaging in positive conflict.
The Aspiring Critical Thinker/Writer/Innovator, D.S. Brown