Pushing through discomfort: Utilizing the natural and necessary conflict between the Roles.
Written by a Luminary & Prophet
Conflict is a good thing. Trust me as I make my case. I believe conflict, in its healthy sense, gets lumped in with unhealthy conflict that is caused by ego, anger, avarice and so on. I am here to tell you some conflict is good, even necessary for a team. Being able to disagree, even to the extent of ‘conflict’ is needed in the workspace, this is how people make each other better employees and people overall. Take a difference in opinion with a colleague for instance, if you can’t verbalize the disagreement it will likely compound. Over time it develops into a largely preventable, toxic working environment. If you don’t care enough to convey the disagreement it can be a sign of apathy in the workplace, or not caring about the mission enough to ‘fight’ for what is right.
Historically, people use the word conflict in relationship to people, but realistically, conflict is the result of a dichotomy between ideals, values, beliefs or principals. People have conflict due to differing ideas and motivations. However, for conflict to ever be valuable, understanding that the conflict is about the ideas, rather than the individuals, is the first step to handling healthy conflict.
One way to look at the differences in conflict handling is through the lens of the 7 Roles. Each role brings a particular value set that is used to evaluate not only the ‘problem’ but how to approach the solution. These value sets differ for each role and lead to frequently seen conflict patterns. In particular, I want to talk about the conflicts that arise between
- Prophet and Conceptualizer
- Prophet and Team Builder
- Prophet and Organizer
- Luminary and Conceptualizer
- Organizer and Implementor
Now the first thing you might notice is… Wow! Prophets have a lot of conflict! That is inherently true with the Prophet role because by definition their value is in questioning the status quo. If this is not done thoughtfully, it can rub a lot of people the wrong way.
The second thing you might notice is that the Investor role is not listed here. All humans, including investors have conflict from time to time, but investors specifically aim to make no enemies. Their goal is the bottom line or the outcome so they strive for compromise with all the Roles intentionally.
A final note before diving into the details of each pairing, is that people aren’t just one role, so there are people that, for example, play the Prophet/Organizer in their top Roles. This leads to an internal rather than external conflict but should be treated with the same (or more!) consideration as external (person to person) conflict.
When we break down each of the conflicts, especially with the Prophet Role, think about it like someone who is learning how to drive a car: one role is pressing on the gas while the other is frantically stomping on the brakes. We need to be able to move, but we also need to know when to slow down (and how to do so without spilling your coffee!).
Below I map out each of the conflicts, convey their innate value and utility, and provide a potential solution to keep the discordance from becoming unhealthy.
- Prophet-Conceptualizer Conflict
The conflict:
The Prophet, once decided on a direction, goes towards it full force. This is a huge resource but can bring a natural discordance with the Conceptualizer who wants to inspect and analyze all potential directions and values information over gravitas 100% of the time. A Prophet wants to make the decision quickly and the Conceptualizer needs time to process the facts.
Utility of the Conflict:
This conflict is incredibly useful. Its’ value is found in keeping the vision the Prophet has set, well founded, well researched, well supported with the right data. The Conceptualizer will make the Prophet slow down in order to make sure all the facts are understood and the Prophet will make sure the Conceptualizer doesn’t get bogged down too much with unnecessary details.
A solution:
Pre-reads, time and discussion. The Prophet and Conceptualizer should come up with a process where the Prophet gives the Conceptualizer headway before the decision time. This may include a pre-read or preview of decision making information or time to investigate the vision prior to the process moving forward. The Prophet needs to give the Conceptualizer time (at least a night’s sleep) while the Conceptualizer needs to either give either their opinion, an answer or reasoning for needing more time/information.
2. Prophet and Team Builder
The conflict:
Similar to the previous conflict, the Prophet will unapologetically move towards their perception of progress. Even if their perception is 100% correct, the Team Builder and Prophet may come into conflict if the people involved are barely considered, or worse, if they are not considered. This conflict is especially complicated as the Team Builder is conflict averse, meaning if the Prophet isn’t cautious, issues can be left festering until a worse situation arises.
Utility of the Conflict:
The utility here is simple, people should be at the center of every team. The Prophet will be able to work with the Team Builder to push through the fear of others disapproval towards an idea and the Team Builder will keep the Prophet from bulldozing over people.
A solution:
Time and space. Trust is the necessary ingredient here, in the sense that the Prophet needs to gain the trust of the Team Builder and the Team Builder needs to build the confidence to convey disagreements with the Prophet. This isn’t accomplished in a single meeting, or by virtue of a declarative edict, but rather an acknowledgement by both roles that silent disagreement doesn’t help the team and that each role is given the space to convey the disagreement.
3. Prophet and Organizer
The conflict:
Where the Organizer runs into the most angst is in changes to the system. They spend time optimizing the system and having a Prophet come in and say, “This is wrong,” can be quite disheartening. On the Prophet’s side, their goal is to go the right way, not the way that has always been done, so their frustration is stemmed in combating the mantra of “don’t fix what isn’t broken.”
Utility of the Conflict:
Better systems for the team! The Organizer makes systems and processes reproducible, that, along with the Prophet’s ability to see a better future will make future goals achievable AND reproducible.
A solution:
The Prophet should be aware and cognizant of the time spent saying what is wrong with the current system and admire (yes, admire) the parts of the system that work well, especially those that the Organizer played a role in creating. Additionally, setting expectations with the Organizer for the amount of time it will take for the new idea/pivot plan to yield better results. The Organizer should attempt to see the system in place as a living organism, where there is always room for improvement, even drastic and disrupting ones..
4. Luminary and Conceptualizer
The conflict:
Luminaries are just so…excited. Their way of motivating people is through fun, not facts. This doesn’t mean the Luminary role direction is wrong, but to someone who plays Conceptualizer high can see a Luminary as egotistical, flippant or worse yet, and especially if they disagree with the direction, irresponsible. The Conceptualizers on the other hand, given their interest in information and worry regarding not having enough information, can be perceived as negative and not a team player.
Utility of the Conflict:
The Conceptualizer keeps the Luminary honest and logical, pushing back on enthusiasm and making the Luminary ‘prove’ it. This makes sure the team really does go in the right direction as well as the fun one. Luminaries partnered with Conceptualizers can be unstoppable teams because the Conceptualizer exposes the necessary information and the Luminary rallies the team to execute.
A solution:
Exactly the same as the Prophet — Conceptualizer solution. Pre-reads and time!
5. Implementor and Organizer
The conflict:
The Imitation Game, a movie based on Alan Turing, the notorious code breaker, describes this conflict perfectly. The team initially (for simplicity’s sake) was 3 Implementors and 1 Organizer (who is Alan here). The Implementors tried to break the Nazi code every day by hand and Alan spent months building a machine to do it instead. This frustrated the heck out of the Implementors who saw Alan (the Organizer) not helping in the need and Alan saw a better, more optimized solution rather than daily monotony.
Utility of the Conflict:
The Implementors are necessary for implementation and execution and the Organizer is needed for a reproducible, logical structure to follow.
A solution:
A solution is also found in the imitation game movie! A woman (Joan Clark, played by Keira Knightley) joined the team who I would argue plays the Team Builder Role highly. Joan convinced Alan to invest emotional energy into getting to know the team (the Implementors) while conveying how he cared for them and the solution. Leaning into the Team Builder Role for the Organizer will bridge the gap between creating a good system and being overpowering.
In sum, conflict across Roles isn’t just normal because ‘people are people,’ the conflict is actually a service to the team and should be valued as a tool. Iron sharpens Iron and that is what differences in the Roles do too.
Lumiere Sciences is a tech-education company providing collaboration-focused sessions and executive coaching around the 7 Roles Framework. We help your team’s boost productivity, be empowered in their strengths, and achieve goals through 7 critical Roles!
We help team’s understand each-others Role strengths and weaknesses, create efficiencies and build harmony. Managers are well-equipped to lead, hire and retain top talent. Our family-owned company, My Team Role, can give you a brief overview of the roles, let you access our assessment, and allow you to schedule individual coaching sessions with one of our executive coaches.
