Conflict over substance can move a team forward; conflict over the person always harms it.
Not all conflict is alike. Conflict over substance revolves around the content of the task: What is right, what do we do? Conflict over the person consists of dislike, hurt feelings and insinuation. The first can improve a decision because more perspectives are examined. The second ties up energy and attention that the task then lacks.
The team principle in detail
Four steps through the principle: understand, check, connect, apply. Open any topic to read more.
The explanationThe difficult part: in everyday work, the two usually occur together.
- The difficult part: in everyday work, the two usually occur together.
- An objection to my proposal quickly feels like an objection to me.
- Whether a dispute over substance stays focused on substance therefore depends on trust.
- Where trust is lacking, disagreement is read as an attack.
Read closelyWhat the principle says – and what it doesn’t
It says “can,” not “will.” That conflict over substance helps is not the norm. It is most useful in new, non-routine decisions and where there is trust; in routine work and amid distrust, it does harm too.
- It does not say
- Fight more. What is supported: allow conflict over substance and keep it separate from the personal.
- Strictly speaking
- The “always” is an overstatement. Research shows consistent harm on average, not a law without exceptions.
- The core statement overlooks a third type: conflict over responsibilities and allocation – who does what, who gets what. It does harm much like personal conflict.
The signs3 signs that the principle is at work · 3 that it is missing
- In meetings, people wrestle hard over content, and afterward everyone goes back to work as usual.
- Objections target proposals, not people.
- In the end, a decision is made.
- Either there is dead silence, or things get personal.
- The question is who is right instead of what is right.
- Old grievances resurface with every new topic.
The research6 sources: 3 meta-analyses, 2 primary studies, 1 practice report · 1995–2013 · with research limitations
- low
- moderate
- high
Moderate – the second half of the statement is well supported, the first only under certain conditions.
- 1995Karen A. Jehn
105 work groups and management teams: relationship conflict lowers satisfaction, liking and the intention to stay. Task conflict is harmful in routine tasks; in non-routine tasks it does no harm and is partly beneficial.
- 1997Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, Jean L. Kahwajy & L. J. Bourgeois III
Executive teams that fight hard over substance use six tactics: more data, multiple alternatives, common goals, humor, a balanced power structure and deciding without forcing consensus.
- 2000Tony L. Simons & Randall S. Peterson
70 top management teams: intrateam trust moderates whether conflict over substance turns into relationship conflict. Without trust, disagreement on the merits is interpreted as a personal attack.
- That conflict over substance helps is not the norm: the meta-analysis by Carsten K. W. De Dreu and Laurie R. Weingart found negative associations with performance on average; the larger one by Frank R. C. de Wit and colleagues found roughly neutral ones.
- The “always” for conflict over the person overstates a consistent average.
- The data are mostly cross-sectional – poor performance can also cause conflict.
Read more: what the research shows
Research distinguishes three types of conflict in groups: task conflict (over the substance), relationship conflict (over the person) and process conflict (over responsibilities and procedures). Karen A. Jehn found that relationship conflict lowers satisfaction and the intention to stay, while task conflict is harmful in routine tasks and partly beneficial in non-routine ones. Two meta-analyses put this to the test: Carsten K. W. De Dreu and Laurie R. Weingart found negative associations with performance for both types on average; Frank R. C. de Wit, Lindred L. Greer and Karen A. Jehn found no general harm from task conflict, but consistent negative associations for relationship and process conflict. Tony L. Simons and Randall S. Peterson showed that trust helps determine whether conflict over substance turns into relationship conflict.
The originFrom team research · not from John C. Maxwell
- 1995OriginFrom team research
Earliest source: Karen A. Jehn
- 2001For comparison
John C. Maxwell’s The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork does not treat conflict as a law of its own.
The related team principles12 Reliability · 13 Safety · 05 Diversity · 15 Dissent
The principle presupposes “Reliability” and “Safety”, draws on “Diversity” and gives “Dissent” its form.
The action steps5 steps: Separate the issue from the person explicitly.
- Separate the issue from the person explicitly. Ask: What are we arguing about right now – the content, responsibilities or each other?
- Argue with more data and with several alternatives. Anyone choosing between just two proposals is soon choosing between two people.
- Remind everyone of the shared goal before you argue about the route.
- Decide without forcing consensus. Everyone is heard, then a decision is made.
- Take conflict between two people seriously and deal with it early. Address it and bring in a third party if needed.
The questions for your team3 questions for your team conversation: When did we last have a real argument about substance – and did it make the decision better?
- When did we last have a real argument about substance – and did it make the decision better?
- Where has a factual issue become personal on our team, and how did we notice?
- What rule would help us wrestle harder over content without damaging one another?
Take time for one question at your next team meeting. Talk about it openly and note down what you take away from it.
The picture to rememberTwo groups meet in the middle, and the friction over substance produces a golden shape.
- Two groups meet in the middle, and the friction over substance produces a golden shape.
- When the arrows aim at people, cracks appear and the groups drift apart.
What the Team Principle of Conflict looks like in practice
“Awfully Hot” – but Never Angry
In the winter of 1902–03, Wilbur and Orville Wright argue long and loudly in the back room of their bicycle shop in Dayton about how a propeller produces thrust. Their mechanic, Charles E. Taylor, recalled that the two never really got angry – ten months later, the first powered airplane flies at Kitty Hawk.
One Company Becomes Adidas and Puma
For about a quarter of a century, Adolf and Rudolf Dassler run a sports shoe factory together in Herzogenaurach; in 1936, Jesse Owens wins his gold medals in their shoes. In 1948 they part ways in a bitter dispute – one company becomes Adidas and Puma, one town becomes two camps.
Four Months of Argument Behind Closed Windows
From May 25 to September 17, 1787, 55 delegates in Philadelphia wrestle with how thirteen states can become one country, and more than once come close to failure. Beforehand they set themselves rules: secrecy until the work is finished – and any decision already made can be reopened.
