Management Insights Circa Spring 2025
March 18, 2025
Another dinobaby blog post. Eight decades and still thrilled when I point out foibles.
On a call today, one of the people asked, “Did you see that excellent leadership comes from ambivalence?” No, sorry. After my years at the blue chip consulting firm, I ignore those insights. Ambivalence. The motivated leader cares about money, the lawyers, the vacations, the big customer, and money. I think I have these in the correct order.
Imagine my surprise when I read another management breakthrough. Navigate to “Why Your ‘Harmonious’ Team Is Actually Failing.” The insight is that happy teams are in coffee shop mode. If one is not motivated by one of the factors I identified in the first paragraph of this essay, life will be like a drive-through smoothie shop. Kick back, let someone else do the work, and lap up that banana and tangerine goodie.
The write up reports about a management concept that is that one should strive for a roughie, maybe with a dollop of chocolate and some salted nuts. Get that blood pressure rising. Here’s a passage I noted:
… real psychological safety isn’t about avoiding conflict. It’s about creating an environment where challenging ideas makes the team stronger, not weaker.
The idea is interesting. I have learned that many workers, like helicopter parents, want to watch and avoid unnecessary conflicts, interactions, and dust ups. The write up slaps some psycho babble on this management insight. That’s perfect for academics on tenure track and talking to quite sensitive big spending clients. But often a more dynamic approach is necessary. If it is absent, there is a problem with the company. Hello, General Motors, Intel, and Boeing.
Stifle much?
The write up adds:
I’ve seen plenty of “nice” teams where everyone was polite, nobody rocked the boat, and meetings were painless. And almost all of those teams produced ok work. Why? Because critical thinking requires friction. Those teams weren’t actually harmonious—they were conflict-avoidant. The disagreements still existed; they just went underground. Engineers would nod in meetings then go back to their desks and code something completely different. Design flaws that everyone privately recognized would sail through reviews untouched. The real dysfunction wasn’t the lack of conflict—it was the lack of honest communication. Those teams weren’t failing because they disagreed too little; they were failing because they couldn’t disagree productively.
Who knew? Hello, General Motors, Intel, and Boeing.
Here’s the insight:
Here’s the weird thing I’ve found: teams that feel safe enough to hash things out actually have less nasty conflict over time. When small disagreements can be addressed head-on, they don’t turn into silent resentment or passive-aggressive BS. My best engineering teams were never the quiet ones—they were the ones where technical debates got spirited, where different perspectives were welcomed, and where we could disagree while still respecting each other.
The challenge is to avoid creating complacency.
Stephen E Arnold, March 18, 2025
Comments
Got something to say?
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
