Accord

He calls it “healthy tension”. I’m instantly interested, on the edge of my seat wanting to hear more.  What is this phrase he has coined to describe the dynamic he believes teams should aspire to in their working relationships?  I am seeing tension for sure, whether it’s healthy or not is another story.  What’s unclear to me is if he feels we’ve already reached this goal or sees we have more work to do.

I observe our teams experiencing a faux collaboration; no one gets too friendly or too comfortable. A certain congeniality is extended and embraced on the surface, tempered by an awareness that at any moment the hammer will come down. We’re always prepared with our defense. Ideas over-incubate, hatching induced once their parentage is indisputable. It’s all about taking credit so we’re ready when asked, “What have you done lately?”  We’re just short of a partnership or true equality because at the end of the day one party feels entitled to wield power over the other. Each side wants to win separately, and as such they both lose, creating a double negative, abdicating the powerful alliance these two groups should be poised to create.

It’s worth considering why we join forces with others. I like to think we come together because we see mutual benefit.  We know that together we can achieve more than we could individually; we can make each other better.  Each party brings different strengths, experiences, viewpoints and priorities.  Inevitably this introduces conflict. It takes an enormous amount of humility, self-awareness and vulnerability to marry our differences into a harmonious, functioning partnership.  And the benefits are epic, beyond anything you could ever imagine.

Yet many of us take the easy way out, we keep our conversations at the transactional level, steering clear of contentious topics in the name of keeping the peace.  Our silence becomes consent, and as such we never feel heard because we’re unwilling to say anything.  Until it leaks out sideways.  In another conversation.  About something seemingly trivial and unrelated.

The thing is open discussion in the face of conflict is the breeding ground of an unbreakable union.  You can’t impart your unique perspective unless you’re willing to dispute tried and true views.  You can’t incorporate what the other party brings to the partnership unless you’re willing to risk floating an idea in its nascence so it can be nurtured together. Expressing frustrations uncovers our differences, discussing our differences builds a new and better path forward.

I recently ran across some research that says the healthiest relationships are not the ones between couples who keep arguments and debate to a minimum, but between those who openly address conflicts when they arise. They don’t let grievances pile up, in fact they are vigilant about raising issues in the moment.  They know the destructiveness of the rug of contempt, and avoid sweeping problems under it.  The couples who are comfortable working through disagreements are closer, have each other’s backs and tend to stay together.  This feels like healthy tension to me.

 

And I believe in this for business partnerships, too.  As service providers we’re taught to be people pleasers; “the customer is always right.”  Maybe we need to be asking our customers if they want to always be right, if the tension in our partnership is, in fact, healthy.

I’m thinking about the meta-conversation, the one that lays out the ground rules for discussing conflict and differences of opinion, and bringing new ideas.  The one that ensures we respect each other as individuals, leaving pride intact.  The one that opens the door for winning together.