“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.” — Viktor E. Frankl
In my 30 years in the leadership trenches, I’ve seen enough “sideways energy” to power a small city. You know exactly what I’m talking about—the passive-aggressive note taped to the breakroom microwave, the eye-roll during a team huddle, or the “we’ve always done it this way” shutdown that kills a new idea before it can even breathe.
We often try to avoid these moments because we want to be “nice.” But as I’ve shared with you before, nice is different than kind. Nice ignores the elephant in the room to keep a fake peace. Kind addresses the conflict supportively to fix the system.
A Lesson from the “Happiest Place on Earth”
This past weekend, my son and I spent the day together at Disney. We were on a mission: one last ride on Aerosmith’s Rockin’ Roller Coaster before it goes the way of the Dinosaur (literally, but that’s a post for another day).
Now, if you know me, you know I’m a total thrill junkie. I adore roller coasters and would ride them on repeat all day if I could! So, while we waited in line to experience the joy of a 0-to-60 mph launch, we chatted about his life in the “real world” of academia.
He’s in his last semester of college with a course load that makes my head spin: two upper-level physics courses, Senior Design for Computer Science, and Entrepreneurship for the Department of Defense. He’s the project designer for his Senior Design project—which is incredibly complex and honestly, really cool—but his Entrepreneurship course is another story. It’s a group of six students assigned to the project, and right now, they are “aimlessly attacking” a project because no one is taking the lead on coordination.
He told me, “Mom, I can see the problems, but I don’t have the capacity to be the project manager for another group. I don’t want to get stuck with it.”
We stood there and talked about the fact that progression to goal requires conflict. My son isn’t being “mean” by seeing the flaws; he’s seeing reality. I told him what I tell you in these Trust³ Tips every week: QUESTIONS ARE YOUR SUPERPOWER. If he stays silent to be “nice,” the project fails. If he attacks his peers, the team fails. But if he uses his superpower—Getting curious to avoid becoming judgmental—he can facilitate Constructive Conflict.
The Science of the “Snap”: Why We Turn Conflict into Competition
“The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress.” — Joseph Joubert
Why do we find it so hard to stay “curious” when things get heated? Why did my son’s group immediately fall into a pattern of “aimless attacking” instead of mutual resolution?
The answer lies in our Neurobiology. When we perceive a threat—even a social one, like a disagreement in a project meeting—our Amygdala (the brain’s alarm system) hijacks the Prefrontal Cortex (the logical, problem-solving center). This is the “Amygdala Hijack.” In milliseconds, our brain stops looking for a “common goal” and starts looking for a “win.” We slide into Zero-Sum Thinking: the belief that for me to be “right,” you have to be “wrong.”
Culturally, we are groomed for this. Think about it:
- Sports: We are taught from age five that there is a winner and a loser. If you’re Gen X like me, second place is the first loser.
- Adversarial Systems: Our political and even our grading systems are built on “besting” the other party. From identifying as “red” or “blue” to where you place in the curve, it’s an identity we assume.
- The “Black Friday” Effect: We see this in the “scarcity mindset” of holiday shopping. When resources (or grades, or credit) feel scarce, our “Us vs. Them” wiring (Social Identity Theory) kicks in, and we view our collaborators as competitors.
In my son’s project, the hesitation to address the churn was his brain’s way of trying to avoid establishing dominance in a vacuum of leadership. He doesn’t want to create a point of conflict by pointing out the deficits. In doing that, he’s contributing to a deterioration in outcome.
“The moment there is suspicion about a person’s motives, everything he does becomes tainted.” — Mahatma Gandhi
The Intersection of Ego and Progress
In my years in the healthcare trenches, I’ve seen conflict play out in two very different ways. I’ve seen it tear apart a surgical team before the first incision was even made, and I’ve seen it forge a bond between two rival administrators that eventually saved a failing department.
The difference isn’t the topic of the disagreement—it’s the path the participants chose to walk.
As Morton Deutsch (the father of modern conflict resolution) and the brilliant Dean Tjosvold have proven through decades of research, conflict isn’t a monolith. It’s a fork in the road. Picking the wrong path isn’t just an “oops”—it’s a recipe for burnout, trust deterioration, and a culture of quiet quitting.
Path 1: The Downward Spiral (Destructive Conflict)
The Definition: Conflict as Competition.
When we enter this bucket, the goal shifts from “How do we solve this?” to “How do I win?” It is an zero-sum game where my success requires your failure.
- The Focus: Personalities, not problems. We stop arguing about the budget and start arguing about why you are always so “difficult” about the budget.
- The Mechanism: It erodes the “Emotional Bucket” of the team. Every jab, every eye-roll, and every “cc’d manager” email is a leak in the bucket.
- The Result: Suspicion. As Gandhi noted, once the motives are tainted, even a “Good morning” feels like a threat.
Path 2: The Rising Tide (Constructive Controversy)
The Definition: Conflict as Collaboration.
This is what Tjosvold calls “Constructive Controversy.” It’s the uncomfortable but necessary friction that occurs when two people who trust each other try to find the best possible solution.
- The Focus: The issue, not the person. We treat the problem as an external third party we are both trying to tackle.
- The Foundation: Psychological Safety. This is the rock-solid belief that I can disagree with my boss or my peer without ending up on a “list” or being branded as “not a team player.”
- The Result: Innovation and deepened trust. You don’t get to the “A-ha!” moment without a few “I don’t think that’s right” moments.
Start by Looking in the Mirror
Before you hit “send” on that email or walk into that meeting, ask yourself these three questions to see which path you’re on:
- Am I trying to be right, or get it right? (If it’s the former, you’re in the Spiral).
- Is my language “Me vs. You” or “Us vs. The Problem”?
- If I “win” this argument, what happens to our relationship tomorrow?
Words that Work: The Pivot Scripts
When you feel the team slipping into the Downward Spiral, use these “Open-Book” tools to pull them back to the Rising Tide:
- Defensiveness “I’m noticing I’m getting a bit defensive. Can we pause? I want to make sure I’m actually hearing your point instead of just preparing my rebuttal.” Uses Vulnerability to disarm the competition.
- Personal Attack “I can tell this is frustrating. Let’s pull the problem out of the person—what is the specific ‘it’ we are trying to fix right now?” Reframes the conflict as External.
- Stagnation “We clearly see this differently, which is great. What is the one thing we do agree on as our North Star?” Re-establishes Shared Motive.
The Slippery Slope: Glasl’s Nine Stages of Escalation
Friedrich Glasl developed a model that helps us see the “downward spiral” before we hit the bottom. He breaks it into three thresholds:
- Rationality (Stages 1-3): We disagree, but we’re still trying to solve the problem. We might get tense, but we’re still Victors over the issue.
- Hostility (Stages 4-6): This is where it gets personal. We start looking for allies and try to make the other person “lose face.” This is the Competition Trap in full effect.
- Destruction (Stages 7-9): This is total war. People are willing to hurt the project just to hurt the “competitor.”
Your job as a leader is to “Find the Friction” and intervene at Stage 1 or 2. Once you cross into Stage 4, you’ve moved from a “process issue” to a “people issue.”
Words that Work: Shifting the Brain from Competition to Resolution
- To bypass the Amygdala Hijack: “I can see we’re all passionate about this. Let’s take a 60-second breather so we can look at the data together.”
- When the “Us vs. Them” mentality starts: “I hear two different approaches. What is the common goal that both of these ideas are trying to solve?”
- The Superpower Question: “Can you help me understand how this fits into the project requirements?”
The Takeaway
We can’t be “cheerleader-in-chief” all the time if we aren’t willing to get into the grit. The research proves that Optimism is a force multiplier, but only if that optimism is grounded in the truth. Whether you’re managing a retail team or a DOD Entrepreneurship project, Conflict is reality. Don’t be afraid of the tension. Just remember that your brain is going to try to make it a race to the finish line. Don’t let it. Stay in the “space” between the stimulus and the response. Use your questions to stay curious, and you’ll turn that competition back into a collaboration every time.
Go forth, have FUN, and make a difference!
An Exercise to Try: The 5-Minute “Conflict Reset”
- “Are we arguing about a person or a process?” (Shifts the focus to the system).
- “What is the ‘n-of-one’ story behind this frustration?” (Humanizes the situation).
- “What is one thing we can change ‘Always’ to prevent this friction?” (Focuses on action).
Sources
Deutsch, M. (2014). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. Yale University Press.
Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man’s search for meaning. Beacon Press.
Glasl, F. (1999). Confronting conflict: A first-aid kit for handling conflict. Hawthorn Press.
Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships. Bantam Books.
Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 19-31.