Endangered Thesis: Arguments
Pick a business management or leadership book. It’ll provide some emphasis on conflict, dynamic tension, debate, etc. The experts generally agree that in order to chisel down to the best decisions and focused priorities for a company, conflict is a necessary component. It’s part of the thesis for company growth, which applies just as well to individual growth.
I believe the thesis is endangered, and that presents an opportunity for competitive edge.
This article is not about the difference between argument and discourse, or how to avoid tensions when framing a debate. There’s plenty of useful literature out there on how to mitigate the pains. No doubt, there exists a scale wherein the elegant debate is more productive than the sloppy argument, and so on. The point of this article, however, is to explore the value that compounds through innumerous encounters with the lipstick-less pig at the heart of conflict: pure old fashioned arguments.
Arguing, which is arguably the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to achieving conflict, is at risk for a number of factors. The predominant environmental elements that I observe are:
- We’re less apt, and physically positioned, for engaging face-to-face communication with each other.
- We’re far less obligated & prone to remain with the same team for an extended duration.
- Because of #2, we’re fearful of engaging in arguments with each other across all levels of an organization.
Factor number 2 represents in many ways a very positive & liberating progression. I’d much rather be perplexed with too many options than confined by limited choice & autonomy. Sports teams used to stay together in part because the players’ contracts were rigidly long-term. Employees stuck with one career in part because the company held all the leverage. Marriages stayed together in part because of the legal and cultural constructs surrounding them. As those structures — which were in many ways unhealthy for individuals — have evolved (at least in the U.S), we’re now at a very high level of agency in historical context.
This modern era of free agency presents a new challenge in that our team bonds can quickly crumble from surface-area cracks. Fearing the breakup, we then avoid the little cuts and bruises that accompany arguments, and thus lose out on their benefits. Those benefits include: authenticity, optimal decision making, and deep rooted relational trust.
Sport can provide insightful and [overly exposed] public examples when studying teams. Here’s a relevant one we just witnessed front page:
The Golden State Warriors win back to back championships, forming a dynastic team with no necessary end in sight. Then Kevin Durant & Draymond Green get into a heated argument during a small-potatoes regular season game the next season. All of a sudden the media headlines speculate whether Kevin Durant will leave the team and break up the “dynasty”. Ridiculous, right? It was just an argument. Nope, headline speculations were accurate. While there’s always a myriad of complicated factors at play, the argument (and the organization’s inability to digest it) at least contributed to the breakup, per Durant:
“…And to me, it was just like, we’re a family. Even if he said that, we could move past it. Let’s all talk about. Let’s just say how we all felt about that moment ’cause that’s a huge moment in this whole dynasty. Don’t just sweep it under the rug ’cause we want to win. That’s the reason why we’re not going to win. I was like, let’s just all talk about this, it’s not that big of a deal. Just put it out on the table, we can move past it. And when that didn’t happen, I was just like, [expletive] it. Let me just hoop and worry about myself.”
Familiar story? I wonder, how often has this equivalent scene has played out [more privately] in our companies & organizations? More than we care to share, would be my guess.
My belief in the long-term benefits of countless cycles of arguing, has been forged by fire throughout my near-decade-long experience building an organization with the same four co-founders. Co-founder dynamics exist as a sort of unique pocket within this free agency economy. When the elements of purpose alignment, stakeholder obligation, and time invested reach a certain point, you’re pretty much stuck with each other. It’s sort of like a cross-country family road trip. No matter how heated & sloppy the argument, you ain’t getting out of that minivan to be stranded on the side of corn stalk highway in the middle of Nebraska. You need each other. So you have it out, incrementally get to know each other better, slivers & scabs produce thick skin, and the journey/cycle continues.
Are we there yet? Nope, but we’re wildly further along — in so many aspects of personal, professional, and organizational growth — than we’d have been otherwise without each other. And underneath the surface nuisance of argument is the core tranquility of trust.
Padding for Argument
While there’s no substitute for time, there are ways to optimize how we digest, grow from, and improve upon the effectiveness & eloquence of our arguments.
In particular, I’ve learned one personal trick, and two organizational “padding” approaches that I consider valuable enough to share:
(PS — there are troves of books out there with more frameworks & tactics on this stuff. I recommend trying a few things out to choose what works best for you)
Personal Trick: “Written Gratitude”
I simply write down my gratitude for the nuisance. If I can shift my mindset to appreciating the argument, I can digest its nutrients. To be clear, I’m still prone to get angered, annoyed, or even offended in the heat of a debate-turned-sloppy-argument. However, I’m able to reclaim command over my mindset if I can physically write down or even verbalize to myself:
“I am grateful for Nick, and that heated argument we just had [or that is continuing]. It’s making me, and us as a team, stronger as we crank through this.”
Better yet, if later on in the future I recall the argument again and express gratitude for where I’m at today because of that moment in the past, I can gradually condition myself for heightened self- and situational-awareness at the beginning of the next cycle.
The mental framing provided by written gratitude transports me outside of the painful “trees” and into a perspective of the growing “forest”. I’m far from mastery here, but getting confidently better at it with time.
Organizational Padding: “RACI”+ “Safe Space”
1.) RACI:
RACI is a responsibility assignment matrix for determining who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed in any given situation. In the context of an argument, the “Accountable” party holds the final “say” on a decision for the given category.
It’s near impossible for an impassioned argument to reach a productive outcome if nobody can pull the final decision trigger. When I was twelve, my dog, Champ, would put the breaks on a block from home towards the end of our walks. I’d tug, he’d dig his heels. Neither of us had an edge. We both missed dinner.
Organizations can’t afford to miss dinner. Defining the RACI for situation/decision criteria upfront is what prepares the scenario to be productive well in advance of the argument.
It’s up to you and your culture to determine whether that leader is effective with the “A” or not. The imperative, though, is that somebody has to possess it.
2.) Safe Space:
Safe Space is a simple, intentional communication framework that Packback learned from the good folks at Nick’s Pizza, which provides us a shared vernacular with which to navigate the difficulties of interpersonal communication.
My favorite component of this framework is a simple one: “Intention Impact”.
As imperfect humans, we’re sometimes going to miss on communication, resulting in an impact that doesn’t equate to our intention. The good news, when we remember that we share a common purpose and set of core values, is that we can course-correct when this happens. “Intention Impact” is both a preventative as well as recovery tool for unintended misses. (PS —for another source of learning, Martin Luther King Jr.’s letters provide masterful examples of intention stating)
It’s not a once or twice thing. This is a cycle. We get better at utilizing the “Safe Space” vernacular, and as such we are better able to engage deeper and deeper arguments. These exchanges gradually become more productive as they mature from “sloppy argument” into “elegant discourse” over time.
Most important to keep in mind is that the optimized/elegant communication we all aspire towards will always take time + failure to hone and improve upon. Those are two irreplaceable factors, both of which are trending on the decline in today’s evolving workplace-at-large.
And therein lies the opportunity for competitive advantage.
Build Pillars. Become a Pillar.
Think of a person whom you’ve had one hundred arguments with? Can you still share a laugh? If the answer is “yes”, you’ve reached “pillar” status.
As founders, it’s critical to open that circle of trust and expand the organization’s pillars. This process has been among my most gratifying experiences as Packback grows, and not something I always realized or got “right” early on.
As a team member, I offer the advise to invest in becoming a pillar. Maybe it won’t be at your first job, or even second. I’m not even opposed to the “8 jobs by age 65” forecast. (my co-founder, Kasey, recently offered his advice on selecting the right company for you in a Forbes op-ed: Interviewing Your Interviewer). You have to find the right place for you.
My perspective is simply that at some point, if you are at the right organization for you, go deep. That’s unlikely to be a lifelong commitment, but at least long enough to digest the nutrients of the growing pains, and thus develop the lifelong relationships and perspectives that accompany being a pillar of an organization.
The ROI on your experience, career earnings, and happiness far outweigh the cost of the scabs you’ll endure along the way. Capture that competitive advantage.
Am I wrong? Bring on the argument.
