The Art of Constructive Confrontation shows why confrontation isn't
something we should fear at all, but is instead something we should embrace
and use to our advantage. Constructive confrontation is the difference between
people just doing things and people getting things done.
Often, when we think of confrontation, we think of conflict and anger. But constructive
confrontation isn't conflict; it's a structured, systematic approach to decreasing
conflict and increasing accountability in the workplace. Unlike other business
improvement methodologies, it doesn't cost you money and you can implement it
today. Constructive confrontation works because it's simple.
Authors John Hoover and Roger Disilvestro present The Art of Constructive
Confrontation as a straightforward, common sense system in three easy steps:
PART 1: COMMITMENT: Parties discuss specific goals, the schedule for reaching
the goals, and the process for achievement. Confrontation becomes a negative
and potentially frightening proposition when it’s not engages early
enough.
PART 2: CONFRONTATION: It is misunderstood, avoided, and not applied as soon,
or as often, as needed. It can be the most powerful tool in your arsenal for
increasing accountability and decreasing conflict.
PART 3: CELEBRATION: Rewarded behavior is repeated behavior. Celebration
helps keep confrontation constructive. Just as success over time builds confidence,
appropriate recognition for every level of effort builds goodwill and the
desire to meet and exceed expectations the next time around.
Myth #1: Confrontation is negative.
Confrontation merely means to face something or someone head on, directly,
and purposefully. Confronting someone or someone is an attempt to forge a
solution, seek a remedy, or simply stay on top of a situation. There’s
nothing inherently negative or positive about it. Confrontation is essentially
neutral.
Myth #2: Confrontation is synonymous with conflict.
Whereas confrontation is a neutral concept on its face, conflict is defined
as a state of open, often prolonged fighting; a battle or war or a state of
disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests;
a clash. Conflict applies both to open fighting between hostile groups and
to a struggle between antithetical forces.
Myth #3: Confrontation only occurs when there is conflict.
This is where some of the confusion and misunderstanding about confrontation
occurs. People are socialized to avoid confrontation when it’s conflict
they’re afraid of. Not being direct about their wants and desires, they
talk about everything but what needs to be confronted until a conflict
erupts. Then the confrontation can’t help but be associated with conflict.
Myth #4: Confrontation can be avoided.
Confrontation is inevitable. It’s up to you to decide if it will be
constructive or destructive. An old Fram oil filter TV commercial featured
a mechanic holding a new oil filter in one hand and a ruined piston assembly
in the other saying, “You can pay me now or pay me later.” If
important issues and expectations aren’t confronted sooner, in a positive
way, they’ll need to be confronted later, when everything is negative.
Myth #5: There is nothing constructive about confrontation.
When confrontation is used as part of a deliberate, intentional, and systematic
approach to personal and organizational productivity, it is immensely constructive.
Confronting issues that both parties agreed to address on a predetermined
and consistent schedule is a powerful tool for replacing confusion with clarity,
which helps everyone fell better.
Myth #6: Clear communication and consistent follow up are easy for leaders.
It should be simple and straightforward for leaders to communicate clearly
and follow up consistently. But, most leaders were made leaders based on mastery
of their craft, not communicating and facilitating the progress of others.
Therefore, even simple-sounding tasks like communicating effectively are difficult
for non-people-oriented leaders. The constructive confrontation process is
structured so simple concepts are easily executed.
Myth #7: Continuously confronting progress is micromanaging.
What people commonly call micromanagement is what Ken Blanchard calls seagull
management. Managers fly in unannounced, flap their wings loudly, crap on
everybody’s head, and fly out again. People would rather be left alone
than to be dive-bombed. Nevertheless, lack of clear direction and consistent
leadership involvement draw the loudest complaints. We’ve known since
the GE Hawthorne studies of the 1920s that people work better when management
takes an active interest in what they’re doing.
Myth #8: People push back and resent their work being monitored.
Resentment is a direct result of unfulfilled expectations. When people are
burdened with excessive responsibility and not granted enough authority to
get things done right, they’re set up for a fall. When people are made
part of setting expectations, and realistic expectations apply to the manager
as well as the team member, people are empowered. The efforts become collaborative
and the regular reporting becomes a way to ensure that work is being recognized
and rewarded. Rewarded behavior is repeated behavior.
Myth #9: Effective leadership requires the courage of a lion.
As long as leaders follow a prescribed course of continuous communication,
securing commitment from team members, confronting compliance with the covenant,
adjusting expectations accordingly, and celebration of progress, they’ll
be effective beyond their wildest imaginations. Courage has nothing to do
with it. Resolve to faithfully follow the constructive confrontation process
is required. The rest will take care of itself.
Myth #10: Confrontation never results in anything positive.
Confrontation has spelled the difference between mediocrity or obscurity
and greatness throughout history. Just ask Helen Keller, Bill Walton, and
the stockholders at General Electric. Were it not for the unimaginable resolve
of Annie Sullivan to confront Helen Keller, the latter would have never been
able to speak or write, much less be nominated for a Nobel Prize. If basketball
coach John Wooden had not resolutely and consistently confronted his players
about the basics of the game, there wouldn’t have been a series of great
UCLA national championship teams. If Jack Welch had not confronted long-accepted
and entrenched business practices at GE, the company would have never grown
from a four-billion-dollar “old economy” enterprise to a half-trillion-dollar
market leader.
Bonus Myth: The annual performance review is adequate confrontation.
The annual performance review is designed to do what constructive confrontation
actually does. The problem is that the annual performance review is woefully
inadequate to account for the complex nature of modern work challenges. It’s
an awkward face-to-face encounter because face-to-face encounters are so rare
and unusual workplace practices. In a single encounter, a person’s worthiness
for a raise or promotion is explained in thirty minutes or less and then the
employee is expected to sign off on the evaluation. Continuous communication,
confrontation, and celebration will leave no doubt in anyone’s mind
who has accomplished what and where they stand professionally.
Constructive confrontation increases accountability and decreases conflict.
When things are not confronted early and often, they tend to crash and burn.
By then, there’s nothing left but conflictual, accusatory, negative, blame-placing,
find-a-scapegoat, search-for-the-guilty-and-punish-the-innocent confrontation.
No thanks. The circle of confrontation, with its commitment, confrontation,
and celebration, keeps accountability high and conflict low by eliminating confusion,
chaos, inconsistent messages, and double standards. The myths have been exploded.
Constructive confrontation is the strongest tool available to ensure effective
leadership across an entire organization, at every level.
