If you’re just tuning in, the Leader’s Edge is a multipart story exploring the challenges and growth potential of expanding your leadership range and communicative competence through a leadership development program. Welcome!

Throughout this series, we’ve been following a cohort of leaders from the fictionalized Horizons Tech organization as they engage in a six-month leadership development cohort program. The program was designed to increase their ability to navigate behavioral change and communicate effectively amidst complex interpersonal dynamics.

Last week, we met Mike and Angie — both well-respected leaders who were initially enthusiastic about being invited to participate. They believed in the premise that developing their leadership range and their communicative competence were essential for leaders navigating the high stakes of uncertainty and change, but — like many people beginning a “development” process — they didn’t fully understand going in what this kind of learning actually included or what the payoff would be.

• What would they be learning, exactly? 
• What was the purpose? 
• How would they bring their learning back to their teams? 
• What impact would they see?

We watched as Mike felt so confronted by the unknown that he decided to exit the program. He did not feel able to invest in an unknown or unfamiliar process. The pressures of his day-to-day role felt too pressing, and he felt a higher sense of priority for just “getting things done” in the way he was used to. 

Angie, on the other hand, remained curious and open — despite having her own abundant leadership pressures and priorities. In Session 1 of the program, she heard another participant’s story of a leader’s negative impact on them, and it catalyzed an uncomfortable recognition that she had probably had an unintended impact on her team, too. She wasn’t sure where the program was going, but she understood that growth was needed and this was her opportunity to become a more self-aware and versatile leader. She decided to stay in the soup.

She was not alone. In total, eight leaders from the organization committed to the six-month development program and stayed the course. 

Together, these eight participants moved through a process dedicated to growing their communicative competence — a skill set enabling them to better understand themselves and their team dynamics, as well as to more effectively cultivate the kinds of individual and group behavior change that leads to consistently high-functioning teams.

But staying in the unknown of a development program, even when we’re committed to being there, can be difficult. And one of the early challenges some participants face is whether and how to bring their concerns and misgivings into the room with them. Doing so taps into a very common kind of discomfort — the discomfort of voicing (or hearing) “opposition.” 

A major point of learning for many TeamCatapult program participants is the process of coming to value and welcome the imperative role that “opposition” and “disagreement” play in effective communication. In Structural Dynamics (the approach to communication developed by researcher David Kantor that we build our curriculum around), the act of opposition is known as the communication action of “Oppose” — and it’s critical for enabling the “real stuff” to surface in a conversation. 

Disagreement can be a major trigger

How often do you leave a conversation and vent to someone else about what you wish would have happened differently in it? 

For some of us, we will have lots of stories and explanations about why we did not or could not say what we really wanted to say in the moment. Maybe we felt that it wouldn’t have made a difference anyway. Maybe we knew we would have been met with anger or defensiveness and didn’t want to invite that kind of dynamic. Or maybe we’ve been told that saying what we really feel could have serious career repercussions. All of these are valid concerns. 

The lack of opposition in a team system can often lead to people saying things like: 

• “We talk about the same things over and over, never really getting to the ‘real’ conversation.”
• “If I could only convince others to see what I see, we would be so much better off.”
• “I get it, but my leadership doesn’t — and I don’t know how to tell them they are the problem.”
• “We debate about roles and responsibilities, but we’re unable to agree on who should own what.”
• “We avoid the difficult conversations that we know we need to have.”
• “Our decision making is undefined and/or slow and unclear. It leads to lagging behind on decisions that need to be made, and we’re never clear about who’s making them, when they will be made, and how we will be accountable.”

While voicing the communication action of Oppose is essential for surfacing these important concerns, boy, oh boy, can it be a trigger! 

• For some, the challenge is in voicing their perspective when it doesn’t seem to align with other people’s viewpoint (especially when it doesn’t align with the perspective of the group or organization’s leadership). 
• For others, the challenge comes in hearing concern or opposition voiced toward their own ideas or approach.

Over the next several episodes of The Leader’s Edge, we’ll be exploring these kinds of challenges. Here in Part 3 of the series, we’re joining Vijay as he learns the value of voicing and hearing opposition. But stay tuned for Amir’s story in Part 4, where he navigates the common challenge of welcoming opposition even when it feels like an attack.

Discomfort and disagreement ≠ a lack of commitment  

Vijay was a senior leader in Horizons Tech — a valued member of leadership who reported directly to Mike. Vijay was known for being a very inclusive leader, often engaging his team in making collective decisions and believing wholeheartedly in the process of developing leadership. But, like his peers, there were seemingly endless demands on his time. The program felt challenging to him because what he’d been rewarded for most of his career was moving quickly, setting the pace, and getting results. 

So, from the start, Vijay was a bit skeptical of how much time the program was going to take up. During the first 3-day group intensive of Session 1, he shared many of the concerns Mike voiced — including the frustrating and tense feeling that the program was moving too slowly. But rather than piling on or exiting with Mike, he sat back and remained quiet, watching to see what would happen and if something would change.

But by week six, the program was still challenging him. Vijay had been doing the work of bringing the intensive workshop learning into his daily leadership. He was trying out what he had learned about communication and interpersonal dynamics, was integrating the learning into his own regular behavior and practice of communication, and was journaling through the successes and the sticky points. 

During this time, he became more aware of his preference for having his team participate in decision-making and including everyone in shared leadership. He recognized that hearing all voices was a value he held closely as a leader. But, as he deepened his self-awareness around this preference, he began to wonder whether he was hearing useful feedback. He began to feel that maybe he was expecting to hear his team vocalize their buy-in rather than really hearing the pros and cons about an idea. He wondered if this was a form of over-collaboration in which a lot of time was spent simply establishing agreement before moving forward.

He was aware that the work of the program was helping him understand that his “go-to” approach might have some limitations. But, if anything, this awareness was making him feel more impatient with the pacing and the six-month-long commitment. 

He felt himself becoming increasingly concerned as the second part of the program approached. He wanted to make a real and meaningful (and fast!) difference with his team, and he was concerned things were just moving too slow. Moreover, like his peers, he felt frustrated by the amount of time the program was taking away from what felt like his day-to-day priorities. He just wanted to know how to scale this work and what he could do differently.

Voicing opposition can be the hardest thing to do

As the second part of the program loomed, Vijay cleared his calendar to make sure he had the time carved out to dedicate to it. As he did, he realized just how prominent his previously small frustration had become. He just could not imagine another three days at the same pace as the first 3-day intensive. He wanted to get to the point and move it along so he could get back to his team. More specifically, he believed that if the program co-leaders would just pick up the pace they could easily get at least a half day of their time back — and that would feel like a win to him. 

As was typical in this program, the group started each day of workshops with a check-in. The program co-leader invited everyone to say what was present for them as they came into the group space. On the first day, one person shared a critical insight that had occurred for her since the last time the group met; someone else chimed in about how excited he was to be digging into the next level. 

All the while, the only thing Vijay could think about was how he was becoming increasingly frustrated with this process. Did they need to spend so much time with group check-ins? Why couldn’t they just get to the material? It seemed to prove his point about how they could make the day so much more efficient if they discarded unnecessary exercises. 

Finally, he took the plunge. He said, “I’m finding myself frustrated by this process. While I am getting value out of the learning, I really wish we could pick up the pace and move faster.”

Amir, who was checking in next, seemed surprised. After a brief pause, he seemed to adjust his response. He said, “I, too, am learning. I’ve even carried some of the language from these workshops back to my team. We’ve started to think differently about some of our work, but I’m also feeling similar to Vijay. I think the pace needs to be faster.”  

The check-in continued, and the group heard from everyone, including the co-leaders. 

Then, after everyone had spoken, one of the co-leaders went in an unexpected direction. They said, “I’m hearing a theme here about pace. Let’s talk about that. Can someone say more about what your experience has been with the current pace?”

Vijay hesitated again. He really didn’t want to be perceived as being rude or uncooperative. After all, he was really appreciating the learning and insight he was developing through the program. He wanted to be a contributing participant, and felt really uncomfortable sharing anything more about his concerns. But, he realized, he also couldn’t just hold back his real opinion any longer — his team needed him, and he owed it to them to voice his concern about the time spent away from day-to-day priorities. 

It was at this point that he remembered some of his learning from the first session six weeks ago. It had been about how to “bring the conversation into the room” rather than leaving it offline. More specifically, it was about learning to voice one’s experience and the value of offering an “Oppose,” which he remembered as the voice that offers correction or constraint in a conversation. The program participants had even talked about the pattern they had within their leadership development group, acknowledging that the vocal act of offering an Oppose was more difficult for program participants than other modes of conversation. 

Here’s what the group had learned: when group systems lack the voice of correction, it’s both a feature of the group system and a behavior of everyone in it. In other words, it’s a pattern that everyone is contributing to, whether they know it or not. The voice of “Oppose” might be lacking in a group because we might not be creating the space or welcoming it. Leaders play a big role in this, but so does the whole group. And then there’s the individual comfort that each individual has with voicing opposition or correction. 

Here’s the thing: we are all playing a part in what we get and what we create. So if no one voices a concern or offers correction, we don’t consider other options available to us — we just continue in the set direction without curiosity about what could be done differently or better to get different or better results. 

We will all have formative stories about any action we take in a group. Vijay had a specific story around voicing opposition: he believed that it equated to being “rude and uncooperative.” Importantly, as someone who valued hearing from all voices on his team, he didn’t receive push-back as rude or uncooperative, but he felt differently when it came to him expressing his concerns. 

Now, here’s what you need to know about Vijay: he had an early experience where he had been corrected and gotten into trouble when he voiced opposition and expressed his concern. He’d been told at his first job (in a different organization) that his job was to support the set direction — not challenge the senior leader who set it. In fact, doing so would be a career-limiting move. This formative experience early in his career had become a “truth” for him — a lesson he had learned and internalized that guided his behavior and his understanding of what it meant to voice concern.

So he hesitated to share his pushback to the group process in the setting of the leadership development program. He even felt his pulse increase as he thought about what he might say! But, deciding to trust the learning and the group, he took the plunge and shared his perspective: “I think we spend too much time processing things as a group,” he said, “too much time having to hear from everyone. I like hearing all voices, but this is just too much. Even just this check-in process — if we could eliminate it, that would give us some more time back to either get further with the material or leave us time after to get back to our teams.” 

The co-leader nodded. She said, “I’m hearing both a frustration with the open-system conversations and a desire to shorten the sessions. What are others experiencing?” 

It was a response that surprised Vijay. The co-leader not only didn’t sound offended or look at Vijay like he was being uncooperative, she was soliciting more feedback along these lines. And, indeed, a few more voices offered similar comments. 

It turns out that Vijay was not alone in feeling discomfort with what felt to him like the inefficient use of time.

“We hear you, and this sounds really important to you,” one of the co-leaders said after hearing group feedback. “What we’re also noticing is that the full group process that you find fatiguing is also the exact same process that has contributed to this group — including us — now having a better understanding of the impact we’re having. In fact, it’s because we’ve all been willing to be in this conversation for a few minutes that we were offered feedback and ideas we can put into action. In other words, the very process that’s frustrating is also what is enabling us to make changes! Based on what’s been voiced here, we’ll shift some of the design around and plan to end 2 hours early today. How does that sound?”

The group was dead silent. No one could believe this was happening. Vijay was equal parts shocked and relieved. He had been arming himself for being shut down or argued with when he first voiced his opposition to the standing plan. But instead, he felt like he’d really been heard. Not only that, but two other leaders had voiced a similar perspective to his — and now Vijay was feeling relief that he was not alone in his experience. 

Most importantly, though, was that his willingness to voice what was true for him had actually resulted in a changed plan for the day — a plan that aligned more seamlessly with both his desire to be in the learning and his concern about having time to get back with his team and address his daily priorities with them.

It was a rare occurrence for him, and one he would remember for some time to come. 

Taking the learning back to the team

After the day’s workshop, Vijay made a note in his journal to spend some time reflecting on something he had noticed for himself in the morning’s conversation: when he was leading, he had a preference for hearing all voices, sometimes to the detriment of moving forward; but, when he assumed the role of a participant, he felt impatient about hearing from everyone. 

He wondered how many on his team might have a similarly frustrating experience with his leadership. He also wondered if others might be holding back their true perspective, the same way he had been. He always made a point of hearing from everyone, but was he really creating a space where people could share their full perspective comfortably — including when they disagreed with something?

When Vijay really started to process his thinking around all this, he realized that the answer was probably “no.” The organization’s culture was such that anytime someone expressed opposition or concern, they had to be ready and willing to fight to defend their position. So, even though he made a point of hearing from them, he probably wasn’t getting the whole picture. 

They hadn’t forced Vijay or any of the others who’d expressed concern about the pacing to defend or fight for their perspective to be heard. They simply asked for more information and treated the perspectives as inherently valuable. 

Walking away from the second session of his leadership program, Vijay knew that he wanted to model something similar in his leadership with his team — that he wanted to create a team culture that was open and curious about opposing point of views. 

So, over the next six weeks, he made a point of trying new approaches to group check-ins with his team, trying to strike a more effective balance between hearing from everybody and moving forward based on what was surfacing. 

As we’ll see in Part 5 of this multi-part series (stay tuned!), it wasn’t always a smooth process. In fact, it was hard and confronting. But by investing his time and energy to scale his learning with his team, he found the effort worth it. 

• Over time, he recognized that he was hearing a greater diversity of perspectives during team meetings. 
• The group was thinking with and through challenges that were being brought up earlier in the process — before they became problems.
• The team was learning to collaborate with each other more effectively rather than only looking to Vijay for next steps.
• The team’s ideas were becoming more innovative and interesting as team conversations became more dynamic — and the ideas that emerged only got stronger by being met with the constraint of vocalized opposition and concern.

He could see these small shifts resulting in real change. And, though he wouldn’t have believed it at the program’s start, he knew without a doubt that the long-term changes he was experiencing were worth every second of the learning process.

What is it like for you to voice opposition? 

Think of a time when you’ve held back from saying what you really wanted to say. What would you have said? What was at risk in saying it? What was the cost of not saying it? 

What Vijay learned about himself and his relationship to voicing opposition in his leadership program was invaluable. He would never have guessed that this was a “soft spot” in his team leadership, but he was now seeing better results than ever.

The lack of disagreement on teams is often the greatest indicator that the “real” conversation is not happening, which means we are likely missing vital thinking and information that undermines our performance in countless ways. 

What vital information might you be missing or holding back from your team?

SHARE THIS POST

Click here to sign up for our newsletter