A conversation pattern for when tension is under the surface...

"I'm sorry, but I don't know what we're trying to do here."

 

You know that meeting. 

The I-won't-be-contributing-more-than-single-word-answers-today one.

The tension-right-there-under-the-surface one.

The smile-and-pretend-everything's-FINE! one.

 

And then something brings everything to a head. 

Here's the scenario I want to talk about today.

You're leading a meeting where two teams are there to talk about a shared project that's not going well. You've heard the complaints from both sides for weeks:

"I mean, I really like Jamie's team but they switched the spec completely and didn't tell us..."

"For some completely unknown reason, they didn't bother to test the design with users until the last minute..."

Here they are together and the tension is palpable. Everyone is polite but tight-lipped. You are pressing on through the agenda but getting very little out of anyone.

You ask a question and someone says:

"I'm sorry but I'm not sure how useful this meeting is? What are we trying to achieve?"

Everyone looks at you.

Now what?

Your colleague has just said she’s not sure what the point of this meeting is. Given what you know about the tension between the teams prior to the meeting, the frustration is really about the other team. 

But the problem with the meeting is that it isn’t allowing people to speak honestly and make progress. 

Clearly it would be better if the meeting had been set up as a safe setting for healthy conflict from the beginning (and in the FewerFasterBolder ecourse, we go through exactly how to set up this particular meeting).

But let’s assume for whatever reason, this meeting’s trajectory has caught us off guard.

Here's what I would do.

 

1. Vibe check

You’re picking up tension and seeing people ‘standing back’ but what are they experiencing?

Try: "Thank you. Yes, that’s really helpful - I wonder if others are feeling the same? Shall we take a moment to agree together what would be really good use of our time today?”

This is a really a proxy for getting to what’s not being said. You are dispersing relationship conflict and centring people on task conflict. Great start.

 

2. Create a new agenda

Developing psychological safety takes time, but you can create a mini safe space in the meeting. Re-agreeing an agenda is a safe way to get below the surface.

Try: “I think our main goal today is to [e.g. smooth the workflow between our two teams]. It's completely expected that we'll have different views on this. Let’s go round the group and each briefly say what feels really important to cover to achieve this.”

This creates enough white space for people to say what they think, contained within a sensible scope so the wheels don’t come off completely. Write down what people say somewhere - on a board, a virtual whiteboard, in the chat. Get in on the record so people feel it's heard, processed and used. 

- If this is all very straight and you now have a clear plan for the rest of the meeting that everyone is happy with, great, onwards.

- If this reveals challenging issues that need bottoming out, here’s how you might do that.

 

3. Unite everyone around shared big goal

“Just taking a step back, let’s remember that what we’re all aiming for is [insert the big energising goal that everyone can agree on - the one that unites both teams and usually involves your customers]. This is what’s guiding us through our work and our conversation today.”

You're bringing a 'north star' to the conversation. This enables discussion to focus on 'does this take us towards or away from that big shared goal' rather than 'who's right and who's wrong?'.

 

4. Get data on the table

Ask people to contribute what they think could be improved about working together. The idea is to turn a grumble or complaint into something that can be actioned. Use your tone of voice to make this feel straightforward, neutral - focused on positively impacting the task, not criticising other people.

“Yes, great - let’s capture that. How would that look if it was working really well? Brilliant. Can anyone see any problems with this? Ok great and so how might we overcome this?”

You're modelling helpful task conflict.

 

5. Create a shared narrative that unites people

Validate the different agendas in the room: “Let’s acknowledge that the organisation is asking Team A to achieve X and Team B to achieve Y”

Articulate the problem: “Is sounds like one of the things that’s causing us a problem is…. is that right?”

Set boundaries: “X is on the table for discussion today. But Y is out of our hands and has already been decided for us”

Celebrate shared ground: “We are all aligned on X” or “It’s clear we all agree that Y”

Acknowledge differences: “Where we differ is Z”

You're creating a shared narrative that allows everyone to be right and for disagreement around a task to be seen as normal and helpful.

 

6. Create some next steps: big picture and small picture

Depending on what’s emerged, see what threads you can pull together to take forward.

Think about big picture next steps: “It sounds like we need to do some more work on our approach to X. Shall we….”

And also small picture next steps: “Would it help if we always cc you in on that first email where the spec is clarified?”

You're turning task conflict into outcomes.

 

7. Gain commitment.

Once you have clarity, get to commitment. Commitment can only be made, not demanded. But here is a way to start…

“Let’s agree that doing X is important and we’ll prioritise it before we meet next.”

“Can we agree that if we get blocked or stuck or frustrated before the next meeting, we’ll raise the problem straight away and all commit to helping find a solution?”

You're creating relationship unity, whilst holding a space for task conflict to continue.

Commitment is sealed with action. Find some micro progress you can make within 24 hours. 

 

Clearly there are many ways to handle a scenario like this. The framework above is just one way to do so, through the lens of task and relationship conflict. The skill is in the tone of voice. You are modelling helpful task conflict without any relationship conflict by being neutral and non-defensive throughout.