Tenet of Leadership #5: Demand constructive contention
An environment with no contention is bad. It means the right information doesn’t get on the table for sorting through to find the right solution. “Destructive contention” is also bad. Arguing without respect for the individual will destroy an organization and push out people who may be of tremendous value but who have no desire to spend most of their waking hours in a caustic environment. Demand “constructive contention” from your people. Argue, but argue with respect for each other. The right decisions need to be made with the right information, and you need to be able to work well together again tomorrow.
The right level of constructive contention can be achieved only over time and through constant demonstration of your expectations. Encouraging your team to confront each other, and especially to confront you as a leader, is a difficult challenge. A high level of self-awareness is necessary to give the confidence needed for these sometimes uncomfortable interactions. As the leader, you must monitor the level of contention and your level of demonstrated empathy and respect; above all, be careful not to destroy constructive contention yourself. Because you are in a position of power, you can inadvertently shut down a conversation with a word, your body language, or simply by giving your opinion a little too soon.
It is important to distinguish between what others call candor and what we are talking about here. Candor, as described by some famous business authors, does not always seem to be constructive and respectful. In constructive contention, you can be highly diplomatic but still honest on the points that matter, straightforward and unambiguous, laying out the information without fear of reprisal. For example, one author discusses candor by using the example of telling someone publicly at a dinner party that her dress is ugly. Yes, this is certainly candid, but it’s hardly constructive contention. Constructive contention, in contrast, may require taking someone aside in private and discussing your concerns with empathy, hearing his or her arguments, and hopefully leading that person to the same conclusion you have made. The key difference is having enough empathy and care about the relationship that, after all is said and done, the right information has been discussed and you have not damaged the relationship.
How does a “no contention” environment develop? This kind of environment is typically created by the behavior of a few destructive individuals at the top. They may create an environment of fear, so people resist putting themselves in the line of fire. Many good people will leave; only those who can tolerate just keeping their heads down will remain, dragging down the performance of the entire organization.
Insist on constructive contention in your environment. You will get both better answers and a better environment where relationships grow, attracting the best talent for the long term.
Larry Pendergrass commented:
In response to sistla vamsi: Thank you for your comment and sharing your experience. I believe I understand you to say that under the inevitable pressure that strikes every company (and in fact every person) some will buckle under this pressure, alter what they had agreed to be the best practices for personal interaction, for leading people and driving toward business decisions… and finally declare earlier practices to be impractical, holding them back in some way.
I think this is a common problem as a company is driven toward shorter term goals. In the game of comparing quantifiable short term goals to the desire to retain a culture “qualitatively believed” to generate the best results in the long term… the short term concrete, quantifiable goals will often win out. This is true in spite of the myriad of studies on human behavior and how to get the best out of each of us.
I have seen the transition you describe sistla vamsi… changes driven by well-meaning people trying to improve the performance of organizations. And in the short term, they can get what is promised… to their bosses or to Wall Street. The real impact is in the long term, as a company culture turns from their management principles that had created one of the most sought after work environments for top talent, to “just another employer”.
To bring this back to “constructive contention”… one of the basic desires we have in our lives is to feel a sense of autonomy. Constructive contention if properly executed allows us to all feel we have had at least a chance to voice our opinions, without a fear of reprisal.
Larry Pendergrass
sistla vamsi commented:
Hello Larry, that was a nice and short article. During my job with semiconductor companies, which are ranked among the top as "Best places to work", i observed what you quoted as more candid / destructive contention. Often this is observed when organizations grow. Particularly in aggressive work environments, i noticed that even if people have enough knowledge about the best practices to handle a decision making effort/collaborative work, often they tend to buckle to the various constraints, finally commenting that the practices which can be classified as constructive contention as far from being pragmatic. Thereby, to-be managers who chisel their ideals by observing the practicing managers, fall into the same ditch and the story continues. Nevertheless, i would like to add that i started realizing the value of nurturing relations as i gained experience and can say that that is one of the toughest and most important all through.
Larry Pendergrass commented:
In response to savroD: I certainly can’t comment on our politicians! But I can certainly agree that these Tenets should not be restricted to the way we deal with our work lives. There are probably many areas of our lives where a similar leadership style would work well. I am the first to admit, however, that a leader may need to draw from a variety of styles depending on the situation. In “Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence” by Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee, they list 4 “Resonant Leadership Styles” (Visionary, Coaching, Affiliative, Democratic) and 2 often “Dissonant Leadership Styles” (Pacesetting, Commanding). A leader needs to learn to flex between these, based on the needs… more often leaning on the resonant styles. To do so, using the right style at the right time, a leader needs Emotional Intelligence. This is a wonderful and complete topic in and of itself… and too much for this comment section.
Larry Pendergrass
Larry Pendergrass commented:
In response to “AnEngineer”: I am a big fan of Dilbert AnEngineer! Scott Adams has wonderful insight into the issues in the work place that can make us feel undervalued and take the wind out of our sails. (By the way, I just finished a great book on this subject I can recommend to you by Daniel H. Pink called “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us”.) Reading Dilbert keeps us honest… and humble… required reading for all managers.
But I don’t think that these Tenets are a guidebook for the “pointy haired boss”. And they are certainly not “rules to be a sycophant by” or a “recipe to avoid being found out”. I strongly believe in these Tenets because I have seen them work, in the work place, with real people. AnEngineer, I hope you too get to work in and environment where you are able to see the value of having leaders that practice these, or similar Tenets.
Larry Pendergrass
Larry Pendergrass commented:
This is a great challenge Kyle. Thank you for posing the question. Unless you are in the moment and witnessing it in action, seeing the body language and observing if the contention is truly constructive, it may be nearly impossible to portray a good example on paper. Contention is not constructive unless the people arguing with each other feel respected in the process. It’s not really the right level of contention if people don’t feel safe enough to lay out their objectives, clearly and without fear of reprisal. This is sometimes very evident in watching the process unfold, and yet very difficult to describe afterwards. Additionally, events of constructive contention are usually small and frequent in an organization that practices it well, not large memorable ones.
With that in mind, let me suggest the following as a positive example. Recently I witnessed a 3 day meeting where the managers involved had researched various product development philosophies for the previous months and were taking this occasion to decide how their department would move forward. It was clear that these managers came with many differing experiences and ideas. Throughout these several days, I saw
• Disagreements and passion, but no voices raised in anger
• Acknowledgement of opposing opinions, but no sheepish backing down
• Sharing of the floor, but total commitment and involvement
• Stating a clear position, but tying into the good from someone else’s viewpoint
• Breaking of the tense times with laughter and appreciation
• And ultimately, knowing that if no consensus was reached, the leader would make a call and they would support it
It was a sometimes tense, always respectful, productive meeting. This is perhaps the best I can do for a positive example. I hope it helps.
Larry Pendergrass
savroD commented:
I think almost all politicians need to hear some of these ideas and get some training! They are such slimeballs!
kyle commented:
Great example of "candor" gone wrong & a good description of how to arrive at "no contention", i.e., the negative examples. What would actually help though is a positive real world example. Good luck.
AnEngineer commented:
Most of these tenets can be broken down by dilbert as follow "Culitvate your Kiss Asses but try to avoid being too big of an idiot to know whats going on"
