Contents
Philadelphia, summer 1787. In the Pennsylvania State House, men in woolen coats sit with the windows shut. Outside, the heat is oppressive; inside, they argue. No one outside the hall is to learn who said what. From May 25 to September 17, the delegates wrestle with the question of how thirteen states can become one country. Their work is an example of the Team Principle of Conflict: conflict over substance can move a team forward; conflict over the person always harms it.
Rules for Arguing
Situation
The convention was scheduled to open on May 14, but delays in the delegates’ travel pushed the start back to May 25. Twelve states sent a total of 55 delegates; Rhode Island stayed away. On most days, 30 to 40 were present. George Washington was unanimously elected to preside. Then the delegates adopted rules of procedure. They agreed to keep their proceedings secret until the end. And they established that any decision already taken could be reopened. This made it possible to hold trial votes that gauged opinion without committing anyone.
Connection to the team principle
Both rules shield the debate on substance from turning personal. Secrecy removes the pressure of public opinion: no one has to put on a show for the voters back home. The right to reconsider lets people change their minds without losing face. Changing your mind isn’t losing – it’s simply voting again. The convention settled how it would argue before it started arguing.
Two Plans, One Deadlocked Convention
Situation
On May 29, Edmund Randolph presented the Virginia Plan, drafted by James Madison: two chambers, with seats allocated by population. That favored the large states. On June 15, William Paterson presented the New Jersey Plan on behalf of the small states: one chamber, one vote per state. It was rejected 7 to 3 on June 19. But that did not settle the matter. The dispute over representation deadlocked the convention well into July. The small states threatened to walk out.
Connection to the team principle
This is conflict over substance in its toughest form. Real interests stand behind both plans, and both sides have good reasons. For weeks, the dispute moves nothing forward. That is part of the principle’s honesty: conflict over substance “can” move a team forward. It does not do so on its own. But because the delegates are arguing about plans and not about the other side’s honor, they stay in the room.
The Compromise of July 16
Situation
The way out came from a proposal by the Connecticut delegation – Roger Sherman, Oliver Ellsworth and William Samuel Johnson: a House of Representatives based on population, and a Senate with an equal vote for every state. On July 16 it was adopted by a narrow vote. Part of the deal was the three-fifths rule: enslaved people were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of apportioning seats.
Connection to the team principle
The compromise is neither of the two starting positions. It is a third option that only emerged through the argument. In 1997, Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, Jean L. Kahwajy and L. J. Bourgeois III described what top management teams do when they argue hard about substance while staying fair on a personal level. One of those things is working with several alternatives rather than just two. That is exactly what happens here. But the compromise came at a moral price. The three-fifths rule propped up slavery, and those it affected had no seat in the room. A team can argue fairly and still decide at the expense of others. Philadelphia is not an unqualified success story.
Signing Despite Doubts
Situation
From July 26 to August 6, a five-member committee chaired by John Rutledge produced the first complete draft. A Committee of Style, with Gouverneur Morris as principal author, gave it its final form. On September 17, 1787, 39 of the 55 delegates signed. Three of those present refused to sign: Edmund Randolph, George Mason and Elbridge Gerry – Mason and Randolph mainly because there was no bill of rights. In his closing speech, Benjamin Franklin appealed for approval. He had doubts about some points, he said in essence, but he also doubted that any other assembly could produce something better.
Connection to the team principle
Franklin’s stance shows how conflict over substance ends when it ends well. No one has to claim to be convinced of everything. It is enough to stand behind the decision. The same three researchers name this as one of their tactics: decide without forcing unanimity. The three holdouts belong in the picture too. They could say no without the convention falling apart. James Madison’s notes were not published until after he died in 1836.
Key takeaways
Key Lessons
- Before a difficult decision, agree on how you will argue: What stays in the room, who leads, how is the decision made?
- Allow provisional votes. People who can change their minds without losing face listen better.
- When two positions are deadlocked, look for a third. As long as there is only A or B, there will be winners and losers.
- Don’t force unanimity. At the end, ask: Can you stand behind the decision?
- Ask who isn’t at the table and will pay the price of your compromise.
Summary
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 argued for almost four months and was at a standstill for weeks. That it did not break apart was due in part to its rules: confidentiality, the right to reconsider, a respected presiding officer. As a result, the argument stayed focused on the plans and did not turn into a fight about people. The outcome was a compromise that neither side had brought with it – with a dark stain, the three-fifths rule. The Team Principle of Conflict sums it up: conflict over substance can move a team forward if the team protects it. Conflict over the person always harms it.
Sources