The Wright brothers (Wilbur and Orville) were known to get into heated debates as they were trying to engineer the first airplane. Their debates were so rigorous that at times they would switch and take the other side. Their argumentative style of discussion is often cited as one of the reasons that they were able to successfully build the first aircraft.
That makes you wonder if conflict is good in the decision-making process. Adam Grant, a psychology professor at Wharton, states that it matters what type of conflict. He differentiates task conflict from personal conflict.
Personal conflict is the type of conflict most of us do not like. The debate turns into name-calling and judgment. However, task conflict—if done in moderation—can be extremely helpful. Task conflict is disagreement about the process, not the person. It’s when both parties are debating not to win the debate, but to learn more about the process.
To me, here is where critical friends come into play. A critical friend is a person who you trust to tell you the truth. When they disagree with you or provide you with feedback, you know that they want to help you grow, not tear you down.
Whenever I have an important decision or am thinking about some new ideas, I run them by a group of my critical friends. I do not always get the feedback I want to hear, but after discussing the idea, I have a much clearer view of what I need to do before I go forward.
Therefore, the challenge is to put together a list of friends you use when you are in the decision-making process. This group may vary depending on the type of decision, but ultimately the feedback you receive will be beneficial.
No comments:
Post a Comment