Things Leaders Do

Conflict IQ Part 3: The Courage Conversation – How to Invite Conflict Instead of Avoiding It

Share episode

How do leaders invite productive conflict? Most leaders avoid workplace conflict, then wonder why teams never bring them the truth until it's too late.

In this final Conflict IQ episode, discover the advanced skill that separates good leaders from great ones: actively inviting disagreement to strengthen team performance. Learn specific language patterns that encourage honest pushback and practical tools for creating environments where the best ideas emerge from anywhere on your team.


What You'll Learn

  • The counterintuitive truth about real leadership courage
  • Research-backed insights on productive disagreement from communication experts
  • Specific phrases that actually invite disagreement (beyond "any questions?")
  • How to create systematic safety for disagreement in your team culture
  • Real CEO stories showing how this plays out in high-stakes situations


This Week's Challenge

Pick one decision you're confident about and actively seek out disagreement. Ask someone whose judgment you respect to argue against your idea.


Expert Insights From

Charles Duhigg (Supercommunicators) • Adam Grant • Patrick Lencioni


Connect with Colby


Series Complete

This concludes our 3-part Conflict IQ series. Subscribe for more leadership insights.

Tags: conflict IQ, leadership development, conflict resolution, team communication, psychological safety, productive disagreement, leadership courage

Category: Business


Speaker 1:

People First. Leadership, actionable strategies, real results this is Things Leaders Do with Colby Morris.

Speaker 2:

Here's a question that might make you uncomfortable when was the last time you actually asked someone to disagree with you Not just any questions at the end of a meeting, not let me know if you have any concerns? I mean literally looked someone in the eye and said I need you to tell me what I'm getting wrong here. Yeah, that's what I thought. Most leaders spend their entire careers trying to avoid conflict and then wonder why their teams never bring them the truth until it's too late. Hey, leaders, I'm Colby Morris, and this is Things Leaders Do.

Speaker 2:

We're wrapping up our Conflict IQ series with something that separates good leaders from great ones the ability to invite conflict instead of avoiding it. Over the past two episodes, we've talked about why Conflict IQ matters and how to spot hidden conflict. Today, we're going full advanced level how to become the kind of leader people trust with their disagreements, their doubts and their difficult truths. Because here's what the best leaders know Conflict isn't something that happens to you. It's something you can actively invite, shape and use to make your team stronger. Let's start with something that might blow your mind. Okay, the most courageous thing you can do as a leader isn't making tough decisions or standing firm in difficult situations, the most courageous thing you can do is make yourself vulnerable to being wrong. Adam Grant talks about this in his work on confident humility the ability to be confident in your capacity to learn while being humble about what you currently know. He says the best leaders are strong opinions, loosely held people who can advocate passionately for their ideas while remaining genuinely curious about why they might be mistaken. Think about that for a second. Most leaders try to project certainty because they think that's what leadership looks like. But the leaders who actually get the best results, they're the ones brave enough to say here's what I think, now tell me what I looks like. But the leaders who actually get the best results, they're the ones brave enough to say here's what I think, now tell me what I'm missing. Patrick Lencioni puts it this way real leadership courage isn't about having all the answers. It's about creating an environment where the best answers can emerge from anywhere on the team. Here's where most leaders get stuck anywhere on the team. Here's where most leaders get stuck. They want the benefits of open dialogue without the vulnerability of actually being challenged. They want their teams to speak up, but only if what they're saying is supportive and helpful and doesn't require the leader to change their mind about anything important. That's not inviting conflict. That's inviting agreement with extra steps.

Speaker 2:

Charles Duhigg's research on super communicators, which is also his new book, reveals something fascinating about how the best communicators handle disagreement. They don't try to eliminate conflict, they try to make it more productive. See, duhigg found that super communicators have this ability to match the type of conversation that's actually needed. Sometimes people need to share emotions. Sometimes they need to exchange information. Sometimes they need to negotiate solutions. The magic happens when everyone's in the same conversation mode. Here's how this applies to inviting conflict. Most leaders approach disagreement like it's always a problem-solving conversation. Someone raises a concern and immediately we jump to okay, how do we fix this? But sometimes the person disagreeing with you isn't looking for solutions yet. Sometimes they need to be heard emotionally first. Sometimes they need to share more information. Sometimes they're trying to negotiate priorities. Super communicators figure out what kind of conversation is actually happening and meet people there first before they try to drive towards a resolution.

Speaker 2:

I learned this lesson with a team member who kept pushing back on our project timelines. My instinct was to immediately solve the timeline problem. But when I finally asked hey, help me understand what's really concerning you here? I discovered it wasn't about the timeline at all. It was about quality standards and her fear that we were sacrificing excellence for speed. Once I understood we were having a values conversation, not a logistics conversation. Everything changed conversation. Everything changed. We found solutions that honored both speed and quality, but only after I stopped trying to fix the wrong problem.

Speaker 2:

So what does it actually sound like when you invite conflict? Because this isn't just being open to disagreement, it's about actively encouraging it with specific, intentional language. Here are some phrases that actually work. Instead of asking any questions, try, what am I not seeing here? Instead of let me know if you have any concerns, this is my favorite Try. I need someone to poke holes in this idea. Ah, that's brilliant. I need someone to poke holes in this idea. Look, if you don't get anything else from this podcast, write that down. And then, third, instead of does everyone agree? Try, who thinks this won't work and why? See the difference? The first set of phrases allows people to stay quiet and still be compliant. The second set actively requests disagreement.

Speaker 2:

Adam Grant talks about the power of perspective-taking. Requests explicitly asking people to share viewpoints that are different from yours. Questions like what would someone who disagrees with me say about this? Or if you were arguing against this proposal, what would be your strongest points? That is good, those are great, but here's the key you have to actually want to hear the answers. People can sense when you're going through the motions versus when you're genuinely curious about their perspective.

Speaker 2:

Again, patrick Lencioni emphasizes that this isn't just about asking better questions. It's about responding better when people actually do disagree with you. The first few times someone takes you up on your invitation to conflict, your response determines whether they'll ever do it again. If someone challenges your idea and you immediately get defensive or explain why they're wrong or dismiss their concern, congratulations. You've just trained your entire team that your invitation to conflict are fake. You've just trained your entire team that your invitation to conflict are fake.

Speaker 2:

Inviting conflict isn't it isn't just about individual conversations. It's about creating systematic safety for disagreements throughout your team culture. Okay, here's what that looks like in practice. You need to start meetings with permission to disagree. Okay, I'm going to say that again. Start meetings with permissions to disagree, Not just once, but consistently.

Speaker 2:

Say something like hey y'all, before we dive in, I want to remind everyone that the best decisions come from the best debate. I need you to challenge assumptions, including mine. And then I want you to celebrate productive disagreement publicly. When someone raises a concern that leads to a better solution, acknowledge it in front of the team. Jennifer's pushback on the timeline helped us avoid a major problem. That's exactly the kind of thinking we need more of. Good job, jennifer. And then model intellectual humility yourself. Change your mind publicly.

Speaker 2:

When someone presents a better idea, say something like I was wrong about this, or hey, sarah convinced me there's a better approach. Again, duhigg's research shows that psychological safety it isn't just about being nice okay. It's about creating environments where people could take interpersonal risk without fear of negative consequences and disagreeing with the boss. That is a big interpersonal risk. And then I want you to create devil's advocate roles Y'all. I know I said write that down earlier, but you need to write this one down to create devil's advocate roles formally assigned someone to argue against proposals and important meetings. You heard me right. Assign someone that's going to argue against the proposals and important meetings Okay, me right. Assign someone that's going to argue against the proposals in important meetings Okay. This isn't about being negative. It's about institutionalizing the critical thinking that leads to better decisions and then use pre-mortems regularly.

Speaker 2:

Before launching any significant initiative, gather the team up and ask all right, let's imagine this project failed spectacularly. What went wrong? This gives people permission to voice concerns before they become reality. Let me tell you about two CEOs I worked with who faced almost identical situations but handled them completely differently. Ceo number one let's call him Robert.

Speaker 2:

Robert was preparing to launch a new product line. He'd done his research, he built his business case and was confident in his strategy. In the final leadership team meeting before launch, he presented his plan and asked for feedback. One person raised a concern about market timing. Robert listened politely then explained why the timing was actually perfect. Someone else questioned the pricing strategy. Robert walked through his analysis showing why the price point was optimal. And a third person worried about resource allocation, but Robert showed how they had everything covered. By the end of the meeting, everyone was aligned. The launch moved forward. Six months later, that product line was discontinued Six months. Every concern his team raised in that meeting turned out to be valid. Okay, but Robert had been so focused on defending his decisions that he missed the opportunity to improve them. Now let's contrast that with CEO number two, and we'll call her.

Speaker 2:

Lisa, lisa similar situation, similar stakes, similar confidence in her strategy. But Lisa approached that final meeting differently. She started the meeting by saying I'm convinced this is the right move, but I could be wrong. This is the right move, but I could be wrong. I need you to try to convince me, otherwise, what am I missing? What are the weak spots? And if you were betting your own money, what would worry you the most? And then here's the crucial part when people raise concerns, lisa didn't immediately counter them. She asked follow-up questions. She explored the implications. Follow-up questions she explored the implications. She treated each concern as valuable intelligence, not as resistance that she had to overcome. The conversation was messier, it took a lot longer and it required Lisa to admit uncertainty about parts of her plan. But by the end of that meeting she had a stronger strategy. Okay, they adjust the timing, refine the pricing, reallocated resources based on those teams' insights. And Lisa's product launch was one of the most successful in the company's history. The difference wasn't the quality of the original strategy Okay, both leaders had done good work. The difference was that Robert treated the meeting like a presentation, where the goal is approval, while Lisa treated it like a collaboration, where the goal was the best possible decision.

Speaker 2:

So here's your challenge for this week. I want you to think of this as let's call it leadership strength training. You're building your conflict courage muscles and, like any muscle, they get stronger with intentional practice. So first, I want you to pick one decision you're confident about and actively seek out disagreement. Find someone whose judgment you respect and say hey, I need you to argue against this idea. What would you say if you were trying to convince me this was a mistake? And don't just listen politely, engage with their arguments, ask and follow-up questions, try the implications, explore them, see if their perspective changes or if it strengthens your original thinking or if it strengthens your original thinking. And then, second we mentioned this earlier start your next team meeting with explicit permission to disagree.

Speaker 2:

Try something like hey guys, the goal of this meeting isn't to agree with me, it's to find the best solution. I need you to challenge assumptions, push back on ideas and help us think through potential problems. And then here's the crucial part when someone actually does disagree with you, your response in that moment determines whether this becomes a real cultural shift or just nice words that nobody believes. And then, third, I want you to practice changing your mind publicly. This week, find one opinion you hold that someone else has helped you reconsider and then share that with your team. Hey, I've been thinking about what Sarah said last week. She convinced me that there's a better approach to this problem.

Speaker 2:

This isn't about being, you know, wishy-washy. It's about modeling intellectual humility. It's about showing your team that changing your mind based on new information is a strength, not a weakness. So here's my question for you to wrap up this Conflict IQ series what would your team accomplish if people felt completely safe telling you the truth? Think about all the problems that could be solved earlier, all the opportunities that could be seized faster, all the innovations that could emerge if people weren't tiptoeing around your ego or your assumptions.

Speaker 2:

The courage to invite conflict isn't just about being a better leader. It's about unleashing the full potential of everyone around you, because the best ideas don't always come from the person with the highest title. Yeah, I'm going to say that one again. Because the best ideas don't always come from the person with the highest title. They come from the team that's brave enough to disagree, curious enough to explore and they're trusting enough to tell each other the truth. Adam Grant puts it perfectly. The mark of higher intelligence is the ability to think like your opponents, not the ability to dismiss them.

Speaker 2:

Leaders, if you are ready to take your leadership to the next level and you want personalized support developing these skills, I'm available for executive coaching, team training, keynote speaking. You name it and again, you can find me at nextstepadvisorscom. There's no E in next nextstepadvisorscom. I want to thank you for joining me in this Conflict IQ series Next week. We're starting something completely new, but the foundations we built here the ability to navigate tension, surface truth and build trust through disagreement that foundation that will serve you in every leadership challenge you face. So thank you again for listening to Things Leaders Do face. So thank you again for listening to Things Leaders Do. Remember to keep inviting conflict, keep embracing truth and building teams courageous enough to challenge each other.

Speaker 1:

And you know why? Because those are the things that leaders do. Thank you for listening to Things Leaders Do. If you're looking for more tips on how to be a better leader, be sure to subscribe to the podcast and listen to next week's episode. Until next time, keep working on being a better leader by doing the things that leaders do.