In The Lost Interview, Steve Jobs told a story from his youth. An old neighbor of his asked him to come over, and together they found a few regular rocks and put them into a makeshift rock tumbler. The next day when they returned to the machine, instead of the common stones, they instead took out these amazing polished rocks. For Jobs, this was a metaphor for how a team of people work on something that they are really passionate about. Through the friction of bumping against each other, they polish not only their ideas but themselves, and out comes something beautiful.

I’ve always thought that this story is perfect in capturing the importance of conflict, or disagreement, in teams. But like most metaphors, it’s only a high level, somewhat romanticized view. Reality, as usual, is much more intricate and nuanced. Not all conflicts are useful, in fact most are probably counterproductive. It is a very specific type of conflict, that with the right amount, becomes the lifeblood and accelerant of any team in creative enterprises.

“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.”

– George S. Patton

This is the classic and most obvious downside for groups that try to avoid any outward conflicts or disagreements. But I actually think it’s wrong, or at least incomplete, in most of today’s work environments. Yes, conflict-averse teams that never or rarely argue over differences are definitely more susceptible to groupthink. However a deeper problem lies in the second half of the quote: people are actually always thinking! To me a more accurate characterization of the issue is that “if it seems that everyone agrees, then somebody isn’t voicing their opinion”.

In a team with highly independent and capable members, it’s impossible for anyone to simply not think. So if the group strives for always-pleasant interactions above all else, it tends to silence only the expression of dissent, not the mental formulation of it. People may walk away from meetings seemingly “aligned”, happy even, but for those who quietly disagreed, this positivity is merely a shell that crumbles quickly to reveal the emptiness inside. If a team harbors multiple differing opinions, consensus is not something that will simply emerge without any friction. When that necessary conflict does not take place in the open, over time, a kind of “toxicity of insincere harmony” can build up inside some people. The consequences of this for the team are absolutely deadly. Motivation decreases: no one enjoys working towards something they disagree with. Resentment builds: the dissenters will always feel that their views matter less than others. Trust erodes: by not expressing genuine, conflicting opinions, people are not being honest.

Slowly, second and higher order effects can manifest, which can be very subtle, and not at all easily attributable to the lack of productive conflicts within the group. Interpersonal (or inter-team) support will decrease. People retreat to their own spaces or silos, and collaboration becomes impossible. Silent, below-the-surface hostility can emerge between team members that makes relationships toxic. Of course, there are usually multiple causes for these issues. But the occasional open disagreement within the team, if nothing else, can at least help to surface some of these otherwise invisible problems.

On the other hand, just having arguments in the open does not always yield good results either. Too much conflict is definitely not healthy, though teams that have been working together for a while usually don’t suffer from this problem, as the ones that do would have fallen apart earlier. What is more common is people engaging in unproductive styles of friction, which can create dysfunctions just as bad as the false sense of harmony from too much conflict aversion. For open disagreements to properly fulfill the role of polishing the ideas and people within a team, they must be argued in good faith, that is, participants on both sides must share the common goal of becoming better and more successful together.

A common failure mode for disagreements is arguing to be right, instead of to seek mutual understanding. Even when just one person in the conversation forgets that they could be wrong, or that there could be something to learn from the other side, the argument can quickly devolve into a pure contest of egos. Arguing to signal status, or to defend one’s political position is another related style of argument that does not improve the outcome nor the team.

In High Output Management, Andy Grove drives home the point that the key responsibility of an executive is not to make strategic decisions, nor to act as an arbiter between people, but to define and enforce the culture and values of the organization. Not all values are created equal, and to me, the most important values are explicit tradeoffs. These are the useful values that guide us when we have to choose between two desirable things that are at odds with one another. “Be nice to everyone around you” is a fairly useless value, because the opposite, “be mean to everyone around you”, is not desired by anybody. On the other hand, Facebook’s famous “move fast and break things” is a prime example of a great, useful value. Speed and reliability are both sought-after, yet are often on opposite sides of tradeoff decisions. This strong statement makes their opinion loud and clear: choose speed over reliability. Airplane manufacturers or healthcare equipment makers may have the opposite statement as one of their values, and it will be equally helpful.

And so I think to foster an environment where productive conflicts can happen is not about actively encouraging arguments or disagreements. That can go astray and lead to its own version of hell. But rather it’s about making a fundamental tradeoff clear, the tradeoff between truthful expression, and perceived harmony between people. Something like the common saying of “speak the truth, even when it hurts” encapsulates this tradeoff, and can be the statement of a very important and useful organization value. As long as people are thinking independently and openly expressing what they truly think, the occasional disagreement and argument will happen naturally, without anyone directly encouraging friction or conflict between people.

As always, this is easier said than done. Defining a good value is just the first step, the trivial part. Enforcing useful values, that is, making sure that they manifest in their intended ways, is much harder, and is what ultimately determines the success of organizations. The value of “speak the truth, even when it hurts” is tricky though. Unlike “move fast and break things”, which is a value with fairly visible manifestations, you don’t know what people are really thinking, and can’t force people to speak their minds. One can lead by example: when differing opinions emerge, try to actively engage in productive arguments in hopes that others will be encouraged and follow suit. But this can only go so far, and may not be effective on everyone. In my opinion, the most universal, systematic way to promote this value is to remove any barrier that could discourage truthful expression.

Why would people shy away from speaking their mind, when they hold clearly dissenting opinions? Some people just naturally dislike conflict, and will try to avoid confrontations whenever possible. People who score high on the agreeableness factor in the Big Five personality traits, for example, likely fall into this group. Although there are always things that individuals can improve on their own personalities, I will focus more on the interpersonal, or group level barriers to truthful expression here.

Being unfamiliar with the unique quirks and characteristics of others in a team can be detrimental to facilitating productive conflicts. Without knowing the mental and conversational styles of one another, misunderstandings, both in meaning and intentions, can happen frequently. This will deter anyone from expressing controversial opinions openly, for fear of being misinterpreted or mischaracterized. The solution to this problem is fairly straightforward: just spend more time working with each other! It is somewhat more challenging in remote working environments though, since the bandwidth of virtual communication (even with video) is quite a bit lower than face-to-face interactions.

People who do not take criticisms well can be another barrier to fostering a culture of truthful expression. Productive conflicts, the ones that improve the outcome of a team, should be about the ideas. The disagreements and criticisms should never be targeted directly at the people behind the ideas. But sometimes, for some people, it’s hard to separate the two, and they may end up feeling personally attacked by a dissenter. They will often retreat to a defensive posture to help shield their own inadequacies, which is not conducive to making the argument a productive endeavor. Over time, others may be discouraged from voicing contrarian opinions, or even stop openly disagreeing altogether.

The last barrier that I want to mention is a more philosophical one, and one that I’m still having trouble reconciling myself. Mindfulness has been on a sharp rise in popularity in recent years. Through various practices such as daily meditations, it promotes better awareness of one’s cognition and emotions. Like in the ancient philosophy of Stoicism, there is this ideal, calm, perfectly rational, fully self-aware version of a person that is elevated to a status above all others. Anything short of that is seen as an inferior state, a failure to exercise proper control. It’s probably a good goal to strive for in most situations, though I can’t help but think that this idea discourages disagreements to a certain degree. This isn’t to say that disagreements cannot happen between calm, fully rational people. But good arguments are often made with fervor and intensity, emotions which are not encapsulated by rationality. When any strong emotional response is seen as inferior, people who hold passionate dissenting opinions may simply refrain from speaking up, in order to maintain the illusion of self control.

Like stones in a tumbler, people in teams need the noisy friction against each other in order to thrive. It is yet another example of something that is technically “bad”, but actually good if administered correctly and in moderation. In fact, it is not just good, but essential for the success of any team working on difficult problems. It is very difficult to get the right balance of conflict though, because having too much, too little, or the unproductive kinds are all harmful. Fostering an environment where people can speak truthfully about their minds, even if it hurts, is perhaps the best we can do.