Productive Disagreement Meaning
In the pursuit of security category, all the things that the voices of power, reason and avoidance in general encourage us to do are to resolve disputes. All agree. Disagreement and commitment. Settle it and move on. Take him down. Set aside the differences. Agree not to agree. Put him to the vote. Seal the deal.
Close the loop. It is the uniform and usual response to conflict and much of why the way we complain has ceased to be productive. If I decide to express a disagreement, I am happy to open the conversation by expressing it. Not all intentions need to be shared – you probably don`t want to start a conversation by saying, “I must really be right” – but if these intentions help pave the way for a more productive conversation (for example.B. “I want you to know that I have some concerns about how we work together, and that`s because I love this product and want to be part of it. To make it awesome, then I`ll definitely start sharing them. You can see how different a disagreement would be from this place of opening. Part of the intuition I had is that, just by talking about the truth and speaking to our positions, we cannot argue badly or badly. And it turns out that it has always had bad results. And so I had to accept this maxim that if you keep doing something that doesn`t work, you`re kind of clinically crazy. I wanted to ask myself how to address differences of opinion that could yield better results.
And that`s what opened the whole book for me. Brian: Let me try to introduce it into some of the topics that we all talk about in the work context and use them. One of them is “orientation,” that nerdy word, but everyone knows how critical it is, and we talk about it over and over again because it`s so important. Do you think that this constant search for direction unintentionally puts an end to productive differences? When those emotions become inevitable – which often happens in conflicts, especially when it`s important – I literally call them, “Okay, so I`m frustrated right now, and I just want you to know that it`s because it`s because I`m really involved in this conversation.” It is amazing how this type of transparency can take advantage of a disagreement. You get immediate results from enhanced security. This strategy may apply to any disagreement. By definition, it is the “safe” option. Buster: One mistake we often make is when we disagree, and we try to reduce it to data. I have this frame with the areas of the head, heart and hands. The head is where information and data can resolve differences of opinion. We often try to force all our differences in this area, where, if we are only looking for the data or if we are doing an experiment, we find the answer.
But I think that`s not the way to do it. It may be more useful to ask, “How should we prioritize this? Should we do it or shouldn`t we? It`s certainly the realm of the heart with subjective values, beliefs, preferences, risk tolerance – all that. But we try to do everything into something that can be solved by information. Once you realize how conflicts in the brain and body are wired, it becomes much easier to stay friendly, open and empathetic, even if you disagree. Do not notice that if you are emotional (or stopped) is half the battle. I work consciously to realize when my feelings slip into a disagreement, so that I can separate them from my position. Buster: Yes, absolutely. I think disagreement is how we look at each other. Productive differences of opinion can sharpen us and make us smarter as a group, but you need that tension.