3.2.6.2 Conflicts as a Motor
In general, we assume leaders are solid and unyielding. But often they do their best
to avoid unpleasant conflicts. Leaders – like all people – have a strong desire to be
loved and to receive acceptance and praise from their employees, customers and
superiors. The fear of isolation and loss of recognition can often lead them to avoid
making decisions and exercising their power and authority. But avoiding conflicts is
neither successful nor a popular or effective management style. Setting limits may
be more important than exchanging niceties – and certainly does more to generate
respect and esteem. You cannot please everyone, nor should you try to. Or in other
words: leadership actually begins where consensus ends.
A good leader must be able to deal with contradictions and conflicts. More than
that: they must ensure that they are openly expressed and resolved. And they must
be able to live and work with the fact that their decisions will never be universally
approved. Any leader who tries to keep a lid on all conflicts shouldn’t be surprised
when someday that lid is blown off – and when this happens, he or she may be
accused of ignorance and weak leadership.
A survey conducted by the Academy in 2002 has shown that a major reason why
teams fail is silent conflicts. 90% of the executives surveyed felt that, when groups
do not (or cannot) meet their goals, this issue often plays a part. On the other hand,
only 53% of the same managers believed that open conflicts were dangerous for
teams (see Akademie-Studie 2002).
According to Sprenger, courage for clarity is needed, courage in order to
“actively respond. A leader needs courage to clearly and promptly tell the other
that he or she disagrees, or has a different opinion, or a different perspective,
without judging or accusing the other and thus not backing them into a corner.
Sprenger calls for confrontation rather than criticism. While criticism targets the
personality of the other party and tends to unfairly generalize (“You always do
that...”) it is directed at the past and benefits only the person doing the criticizing
(namely their right to express their anger), confrontation focuses only on the
problem, specifically targeting a common benefit in the future by changing and
learning from the mistakes addressed” (see Sprenger 2002a, pp. 209–210). Even if
I would replace the word “confrontation” with “debate,” I certainly agree with
Sprenger.
If all the positions and points are on the table the manager must ensure that an
agreement, usually in the form of a compromise, is reached. Here the relationships
in companies can be compared with a marriage: Good couples are not so stable
because the partners never argue – on the contrary. But after a dispute they always
find their way back together again. They have a good conversation culture, a good
conflict culture, and they value each other even in conflict situations. They have
institutionalized rituals. That means they create spaces that only belong to them and
that establish identity and connection for them.
Though in the press and public discourses on conflicts the coverage is limited
almost exclusively on the negative side of controversy, these conflicts can also have
3.2 Leading with Your Head and Heart 161