How Tailwater handles conflict
Most teams suffer from too little conflict. Great teams encourage conflict, built on a foundation of trust. In Patrick Lencioni’s best-selling leadership book The Advantage, he says, “When there is trust, conflict becomes nothing but the pursuit of truth, an attempt to find the best possible answer.”
Tailwater is made up of people. Different backgrounds, accents, beliefs, and preferences. That’s good.
We shouldn’t expect to agree on everything. In fact, we don’t even want to agree on everything.
Some Tailwater team members are Tennessee Vols fans. Others pull for Alabama.
We don’t have to see eye-to-eye to walk hand-in-hand.
Conflict can be a source of strength, and Tailwater has four principles for how we use conflict to get stronger, smarter, and more creative.
Tailwater’s 4 Principles for Handling Conflict
Be loyal to those absent.
Embrace radical candor.
Go to the source.
Disagree and commit.
Each of these principles fosters trust. Used together, they increase the likelihood we reach “The Ideal Conflict Point”, the balance that avoids artificial harmony and mean-spirited attacks.
Principle 1: Be Loyal to Those Absent
When conflict inevitably arises, Tailwater’s most important rule is Be Loyal to Those Absent.
“The ultimate test of principle-centered leadership is to be loyal to people who are absent when their names come up in conversations and meetings. That’s when you show your true character.”
It can feel good to find a colleague who will listen when we want to complain about a manager, a co-worker, or a client.
When we want to confess someone else’s sins.
When we want to vent.
It can feel especially good when we discover that colleague shares our frustrations. We feel validated.
When we confide in our colleague by complaining about someone else, it can also feel like we’re strengthening our relationship. Building intimacy.
But we’re not.
What we’re actually doing is showing our colleague we’re the type of person who will confess their sins some day.
It can feel like we’re strengthening a relationship. But the opposite is happening.
One test of our principles is how loyal we are to people who aren’t in the room when their name comes up. Being loyal to those who are absent doesn’t mean we aren’t critical. But when criticism is appropriate, we’re constructive to the point that we wouldn’t be ashamed if the person we’re discussing happened to overhear the conversation.
If we make snide or disrespectful comments about others when they’re not in the room, or if we remain silent when it’s happening, we’re sending a message to everyone who is in the room.
We’ll do the same to them when the situation changes.
Principle 2: Embrace Radical Candor
A chart created by Kim Scott, the author of the best-selling book Radical Candor: Be a Kick-Ass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity. Kim says radical candor is the sweet spot. The spot where we can challenge directly while caring personally. The place where we’re brave and kind.
The word “nice” doesn’t appear in the Christian New Testament. The Greek is συμπαθητικός, and it’s not in there.
Which is surprising. To me, at least. Niceness seems objectively good. A humanist value, irrespective of faith tradition.
But maybe early Christians thought of niceness differently. Maybe they recognized being nice isn’t always good because niceness can slip into what American author Kim Scott calls ruinous empathy.
Comfortable silence.
When uncomfortable kindness would be better.
Kim has another name for uncomfortable kindness. She calls it radical candor.
Important note here: Radical Candor, the book, became popular reading in Silicon Valley when it was published. And even after reading it, Kim says too many people confused radical candor with obnoxious agression. Radical candor doesn’t mean being a jerk. It’s kind, clear, specific, and sincere.
If we don’t sincerely care about the object of our candor, we’re doing it all wrong. We must actually care about the other person. It’s not brutal honesty or tough love.
It’s filled with respect and dignity.
Radical candor can feel uncomfortable, but it’s also tactful and kind.
In many cases, nice and kind are interchangeable. They overlap, but they’re two different things.
Radical candor isn’t always nice. But it’s always kind.
Nice is concerned with being liked. It’s agreeable and censored. Nice stays silent when the truth deserves a voice. When the voiceless need help.
Kind is selfless and earnest and brave. Kind speaks up.
Nice is, “Yeah, you look great in that fedora.”
Kind is, “You know I love you, but you look ridiculous. That hat doesn’t deserve your head.”
Nice is how we climb social ladders. Kind is how we lift others up.
We shouldn’t let our friend walk out the door in that fedora. Not in public. Not if we really care. Nice isn’t enough.
Our colleagues deserve radical candor.
Principle 3: Go to the Source
When we have a problem with someone else at Tailwater, who do we tell?
We bring it to them directly.
There are exceptions to this. if we witness something illegal, unethical, or toxic, we should report that to the right person without fear of retaliation. Often, the right person is HR.
But unless we have compliance, ethics, or safety concerns, we harness the courage to have a direct conversation with the person who needs feedback.
We don’t call their manager to complain. We don’t gossip with peers.
When we see behavior that needs attention and improvement, we bring it up with the person exhibiting the behavior that needs attention and improvement.
What if that person is in a position of authority? Like, what if it’s your manager?
Are our managers perfect? Definitely not.
Is it possible they sometimes make decisions without complete information? Yep.
Is it possible they sometimes fail to follow up on an issue important to you because of competing priorities? Again, yep.
When this happens, should we go to their boss to complain? Not unless we’ve talked to them first.
Here are a few examples of interpersonal or work-related issues that can often be resolved through direct, respectful conversations.
Disagreement on Work Assignments or Priorities
Perceived Micromanagement
Miscommunication or Lack of Clear Expectations
Feedback on Management Style
Concerns about Manager’s Decisions
Scheduling and PTO Disagreements
Disagreements on Team Dynamics
If you’ve brought up an issue multiple times with your manager and they ignore or dismiss you, there are times when it’s appropriate to escalate an issue.
Escalation should be a last resort, used for serious or ongoing issues.
The escalating team member should be prepared to explain steps they’ve already taken to resolve the problem and present any documentation to support their case.
Principle 4: Disagree and Commit
What if we’ve followed Tailwater’s first three principles around how to handle conflict, and we still disagree with the path forward?
We disagree and commit.
Here are some examples of areas where reasonable, smart, and well-intentioned people may disagree:
Does this young dentist have the necessary leadership skills to lead a practice supported by Tailwater?
Is the timing right for this practice to invest in a new Cerec mill?
Should we change our hours? Considering opening half a day on Friday? Or maybe even Saturday?
Is the University of Tennessee the best SEC school in Tennessee?
Whenever possible, Tailwater teams aim for consensus on important decisions. But that’s not always possible. There are some decisions where reasonable, smart, and well-intentioned people may disagree.
When that happens, team members at Tailwater are encouraged to Disagree and Commit.
A few thoughts on what it means to Disagree and Commit.
Smaller teams shouldn’t beat big corporations. The big corporations have all the advantages. Better market share. Better data. More experience. More cash.
But smaller teams beat big corporations all the time. And one big reason is they make faster decisions.
Big corporations are generally good at making good decisions. Slowly.
Tailwater practices can win if we make decisions that are just as good. But faster.
In Jeff Bezos’s 2016 letter to shareholders, he says all organizations can make good decisions faster if they can get comfortable with the idea that teams can “disagree and commit.”
Here’s an excerpt.
Use the phrase “disagree and commit.” This phrase will save a lot of time. If you have conviction on a particular direction even though there’s no consensus, it’s helpful to say, “Look, I know we disagree on this but will you gamble with me on it? Disagree and commit?” By the time you’re at this point, no one can know the answer for sure, and you’ll probably get a quick yes.
This isn’t one way. If you’re the boss, you should do this too. I disagree and commit all the time.
We recently greenlit a particular Amazon Studios original. I told the team my view: debatable whether it would be interesting enough, complicated to produce, the business terms aren’t that good, and we have lots of other opportunities.
They had a completely different opinion and wanted to go ahead.
I wrote back right away with “I disagree and commit and hope it becomes the most watched thing we’ve ever made.” Consider how much slower this decision cycle would have been if the team had actually had to convince me rather than simply get my commitment.
Be loyal to those absent.
Embrace radical candor.
Go to the source.
Disagree and commit.
By embracing these principles, Tailwater is stronger, smarter, and more creative. And together we can build the most admired group in dentistry.
