Getting Unstuck: Reducing Tension in Teams

Have you ever been on a team that’s gotten stuck? I have. I don’t remember the specific decision on the table, but I remember the fury. I and several others had been advocating for something that a colleague and some allies disagreed with. The conversation quickly polarized and turned personal. In a rage, the colleague told me that she had never been so disrespected in her life. I was taken aback: Me? Disrespectful? I was surprised at the intensity of her anger. I struggled to understand how things got so bad so quickly.

Polarization is a hot topic in the United States since our political system is intensely polarized. Yet this phenomenon is not limited to the public sphere. When systems are polarized, any input can be polarized, said David Brubaker at the recent Association for Conflict Resolution conference. In other words, when people are polarized around ideology, that pre-existing state makes any new idea or information susceptible to polarization. If the question is whether we should reorganize the R&D department, soon two factions are fighting for and against the change.

The first clue that groups are moving towards harmful conflict is repetition, according to Amy Edmondson and Diana McClain Smith. People repeat their point of view, perhaps saying it louder and in more absolute terms in an effort to make others understand. As people restate their opinions, they become more entrenched in their position. Soon people reach an impasse and things get personal. It’s no longer a tactical or strategic issue. Instead, it’s about the other side’s personality deficits or identity. Emotions rise and progress halts.

Managers and leaders can find this dynamic difficult to negotiate. Often, they’re drawn into the conflict and join one side or another. They can attempt to serve as mediators or judges (with varying degrees of success). The entire situation becomes frustrating, relationships fray, and teamwork ceases.

Most people never learn how to work with conflict, yet conflict is inevitable in human systems. Here are a few learnings from Deep Democracy that can help when your team has polarized.

Slow down the conversation.

When conversations get heated, they can move quickly. People don’t have time to think about what they’re saying or how they’re saying it. They jump to conclusions and fan the fires rather than containing them. They say things they later regret but eventually justify by convincing themselves of their rightness.

In Deep Democracy, we slow down the conversation. The hotter things get, the slower we go. This is for two reasons. First, slowing down gives the speaker a chance to say what they need to say. They have the time to be thoughtful and express what’s at the root of their concern. Second, slowing down makes it possible for the person to realize that they have been heard. This simple acknowledgment can work wonders for breaking through impasses. Knowing that their message was received, parties can then stop repeating themselves. The tension decreases and parties have more cognitive space to listen to others.

Invite dissent.

People form organizations because the work requires many hands and minds. Organizations need differing opinions, expertise, and ways of seeing the world in order to address complex challenges and find innovative solutions. We need different points of view, yet divergent voices are often unwelcome.

In Deep Democracy, we invite dissent. When there’s an automatic agreement with the first idea suggested, we grow wary since it’s rare that an entire group agrees. We constantly ask: “What other views are there?” and encourage group members to share.

More troubling is the tendency within groups to prioritize some voices over others. To prevent groups from losing important information and ideas, we take time to explore alternative points of view. When the group decides, they can be confident of their course of action knowing that they have considered and sometimes incorporated divergent ideas.

Welcome the parts of yourself that hold conflicting views.

As groups become polarized, people can tie their identity to their group. An advocate for remote work becomes so entrenched that they tamp down the parts of themselves that like being with people in person. They lose a part of themselves as they gain solidarity with the remote work faction.

In Deep Democracy, we invite people to explore the parts of themselves that hold conflicting views. Few issues are as simple as they appear. When we get in touch with the complexity of our views toward an issue, we prevent ourselves from oversimplification, from denying parts of ourselves, and from engaging in automatic reactions. After all, we can’t demonize the other side when we share opinions with them.

For more information about Deep Democracy, visit www.DeepDemocracyUSA.com or email maya@DeepDemocracyUSA.com.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *