|
DON’T AGREE TO DISAGREE
Hashing out competing views has potential downsides—risks that need to
be managed. On the first Incredibles film, a rising star named Nicole
Grindle had managed the simulation of the hair, watching John and Brad’s
interactions from a distance. When Nicole came in to produce the sequel
with John, one of her concerns was that the volume of the arguments
between the two highly accomplished leaders might drown out the voices of
people who were less comfortable speaking up: newcomers, introverts,
women, and minorities. It’s common for people who lack power or status to
shift into politician mode, suppressing their dissenting views in favor of
conforming to the HIPPO—the HIghest Paid Person’s Opinion. Sometimes
they have no other choice if they want to survive.
To make sure their desire for approval didn’t prevent them from
introducing task conflict, Nicole encouraged new people to bring their
divergent ideas to the table. Some voiced them directly to the group; others
went to her for feedback and support. Although Nicole wasn’t a pirate, as
she found herself advocating for different perspectives she became more
comfortable challenging Brad on characters and dialogue. “Brad is still the
ornery guy who first came to Pixar, so you have to be ready for a spirited
debate when you put forward a contrary point of view.”
The notion of a spirited debate captures something important about
how and why good fights happen. If you watch Brad argue with his
colleagues—or the pirates fight with one another—you can quickly see that
the tension is intellectual, not emotional. The tone is vigorous and feisty
rather than combative or aggressive. They don’t disagree just for the sake of
it; they disagree because they care. “Whether you disagree loudly, or quietly
yet persistently put forward a different perspective,” Nicole explains, “we
come together to support the common goal of excellence—of making great
films.”
After seeing their interactions up close, I finally understood what had
long felt like a contradiction in my own personality: how I could be highly
agreeable and still cherish a good argument. Agreeableness is about seeking
social harmony, not cognitive consensus. It’s possible to disagree without
being disagreeable. Although I’m terrified of hurting other people’s
feelings, when it comes to challenging their thoughts, I have no fear. In fact,
when I argue with someone, it’s not a display of disrespect—it’s a sign of
respect. It means I value their views enough to contest them. If their
opinions didn’t matter to me, I wouldn’t bother. I know I have chemistry
with someone when we find it delightful to prove each other wrong.
Agreeable people don’t always steer clear of conflict. They’re highly
attuned to the people around them and often adapt to the norms in the room.
My favorite demonstration is an experiment by my colleagues Jennifer
Chatman and Sigal Barsade. Agreeable people were significantly more
accommodating than disagreeable ones—as long as they were in a
cooperative team. When they were assigned to a competitive team, they
acted just as disagreeably as their disagreeable teammates.
That’s how working with Brad Bird influenced John Walker. John’s
natural tendency is to avoid conflict: at restaurants, if the waiter brings him
the wrong dish, he just goes ahead and eats it anyway. “But when I’m
involved in something bigger than myself,” he observes, “I feel like I have
an opportunity, a responsibility really, to speak up, speak out, debate. Fight
like hell when the morning whistle blows, but go out for a beer after the one
at five o’clock.”
That adaptability was also visible in the Wright brothers’ relationship.
In Wilbur, Orville had a built-in challenge network. Wilbur was known to
be highly disagreeable: he was unfazed by other people’s opinions and had
a habit of pouncing on anyone else’s idea the moment it was raised. Orville
was known as gentle, cheerful, and sensitive to criticism. Yet those qualities
seemed to vanish in his partnership with his brother. “He’s such a good
scrapper,” Wilbur said. One sleepless night Orville came up with an idea to
build a rudder that was movable rather than fixed. The next morning at
breakfast, as he got ready to pitch the idea to Wilbur, Orville winked at a
colleague of theirs, expecting Wilbur to go into challenge mode and
demolish it. Much to his surprise, Wilbur saw the potential in the idea
immediately, and it became one of their major discoveries.
Disagreeable people don’t just challenge us to think again. They also
make agreeable people comfortable arguing, too. Instead of fleeing from
friction, our grumpy colleagues engage it directly. By making it clear that
they can handle a tussle, they create a norm for the rest of us to follow. If
we’re not careful, though, what starts as a scuffle can turn into a brawl.
How can we avoid that slippery slope?
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
