Culture of nice
I was in a local district courthouse recently, listening to the magistrate take a roll call of parties seeking to be heard that day. When she asked one pair if they’d like to try mediation as a way to resolve their dispute instead of going before the judge, the response was “No, we’ve already tried talking to each other.”
My co-mediator and I looked at each other and whispered incredulously, but what was that conversation actually like?
When we’re in the midst of conflict, we tend to show up in one of two ways: aggressively fighting for our position or doing whatever it takes to retreat. As described by the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Model, our default conflict style is informed by whether we care more about the outcome or the relationship. In the former we are highly assertive; in the latter we tend to accommodate.
As you can imagine, neither extreme is ideal. If we focus solely on the outcome, our relationships suffer, creating what’s now known as “toxic culture”. If we focus solely on the relationship, outcomes suffer, creating its counterpart, a “culture of nice”.
I would advocate for relationship preservation as a vehicle for sustaining future outcomes; the loss of people or the diminishment of productivity can be much more costly in the long run than missing a deadline or even a poorly handled product launch. Sidebar: It’s worth noting that preserving the relationship is one of the main tenets of mediation as an alternative to adjudication.
I work with a lot of creative organizations who often lament having a culture of nice, but that’s the avoidance version. Instead, I advise transforming this cultural typology from one that tip-toes around critical conversations to one that thoughtfully and respectfully engages in them.
Here’s a simple process you can try:
Step 1: Determine if both of you actually want to address the issue.
Step 2: If so, allow each person two minutes to share their perspective on the situation. During this time the other person listens without any interruptions. Use a timer if necessary.
Step 3: Once both of you have shared, allow some additional time to ask clarifying questions of each other to ensure mutual understanding and to define a mutual goal.
Step 4: Brainstorm some options that could address that shared goal.
Step 5: Select one that seems worth trying.
Balancing a concern for outcome with a concern for the relationship is at the center of the Kilmann model, where the compromise and collaborate styles reside. So, take a moment to reflect on your team or your organization. Do you default to contentious behavior (overly focused on outcomes)? Do you default to avoidance behavior (overly focused on relationships)? What would be possible if there was a more balanced approach when conflict arises?
If you’d like to explore, I’m here for you.
And watch for some exciting news in October - I will be launching my first course on Maven called “Enter the Danger: Confidently Engage with Conflict.” I'd love to see you there!