There are three basic ways for an organization to deal with conflict. Only one of the three is healthy or positive. The two unhealthy ways of dealing with culture are the most predominant. This is unfortunate since healthy conflict is an important part of building a healthy and successful organization.

The two unhealthy ways of dealing with conflict are either to avoid any conflict or to use conflict as a means to gain power over another person by using conflict as a personal attack.  These are generally a result of learned behavior from early in life where a person saw conflict modeled in one of these unhealthy ways. They might have been taught that conflict is bad and should always be avoided. Or they might have been in a climate of conflict as personal attack and either adopted that behavior or resolved that conflict was dangerous and always to be avoided.

Positive conflict is seeking or sharing truth in a climate of grace. For an organization, healthy conflict provides the means to explore ideas and contribute to the group’s intelligence in a way that gathers the best thoughts from everyone. Positive conflict allows the team members to challenge and explore ideas and proposals without the discussion seeming to be a personal attack or confrontation. Healthy conflict builds a strong and healthy organization.

In speaking about marriage, the late psychologist Gary Smalley would often say, “Conflict is the doorway to intimacy.” Healthy conflict allows a couple to share the truth about their thoughts and feelings. This truth leads to understanding which should lead to acceptance and appreciation of each other.

In a similar way, in an organization healthy conflict provides a means for developing an understanding of the other team members. As team members understand and appreciate each other, the team is able to work together more effectively.

How does an organization develop this culture of healthy conflict or truth in a climate in grace? Here are some suggestions:

1. Set clear expectations and model the behavior. Remember that the organization’s culture is a reflection of the leader’s character. Therefore, the leader must demonstrate value for the individual and value for truth. Encourage a culture that values diversity of thought and opinions. Focus the team on their shared goals and the leverage that can be gained from different viewpoints.
2. Encourage and reward people who are willing to take a stand and support their position. If the team is in the habit of saying yes to the leader, the leader should speak last. Ask for dissenting views. Express appreciation for those that are willing to speak up and disagree with the group or the dominant voice. Check for your own congruency between both verbal and non-verbal expressions of openness. A part of the culture needs to be the ability to express divergent views but then fully support the group decision. Expressing truth should be enlightening, not divisive.
3. Set a group norm that dissent is focused on ideas, issues, or direction and never on people. One way to to do so is to separate the idea from the person by providing a means of visualizing the idea as a thing or body of its own in the middle of the discussion. Be quick to intercept any personal inferences or signs that the conflict is stepping beyond the bounds of truth regarding the issue. Add a measure of grace to balance any elevated emotion that seems personal. Be sure that the dissenting parties leave the discussion at peace with each other. Watch for side or secret meetings that might take place and violate the team’s expectations of truth in grace.
4. Expect people to support opinions with facts and data. Opinions are valuable and encouraged but there needs to be a basis in fact. Encourage people to do the research and come back with demonstrated data that adds to the group’s collective truth.

For organizations that have been in the habit of unhealthy conflict, either avoiding conflict or allowing personal conflict, some diligent effort is required to root out the unhealthy practices and replace them with truth in grace. However, the benefits of an expanded base of knowledge and increased cohesiveness of the team make it well worth the effort.

Does your organization practice a truth in grace model of conflict? If not, what is the cost to your organization?