When you have low conflict, you often also have little trust. That doesn’t mean there’s no one within the organization who’s trustworthy. It just means no one has had the opportunity to earn or gain trust. With the organization described in Part 1 of this post, things had been so casual and conflict-free that they hadn’t struggled through tough decisions in a way that builds trust among team members. So, that’s part of what we did with leadership and staff: build trust. As a result of that work, their trust level for one another was ultimately much higher, which was much more healthy for the organization.

Sometimes all it takes is having a leadership dinner together or non-working lunches. Often companies place such high value on “producing” that they devalue relationship-building. Remember, just because things in the workplace are cordial doesn’t mean you know one another well, how you each think or what kinds of ideas you best bring to the table. In the vacuum of that actual solid information, people are left making a lot of assumptions about one another—many of which are inaccurate.

It’s important to take the time to hear each other’s stories—to hear where you’ve each had struggles and where you’ve each had triumphs. So we challenge groups to extend the timelines for their retreats and to make the lunch a full hour of sitting and talking and eating together. It’s often an incredible shift to do something so simple, but people are quick to really claim it. Soon they’ll expect to have dinner together in preparation for a big meeting. Soon they’ll expect to have time to just sit and connect with one another without an agenda.

It’s a real cultural shift, especially for extremely busy leaders. But these strong interpersonal relationships are necessary for sustainability because it’s through those conversations and free discussions that trust is instilled. That was certainly true in the case of the “conflict-free” organization described earlier.

We were able to bring them specific tools and insights about relational skills that really resonated such as deep democracy and humor. They were able to embody those values and skills and talk about their intentions. Moving forward, they’re able to use those skills in communicating with each other.

The true poignancy is that in their field, they give voices to those who have been marginalized and create new dialogues … yet those values had not showed up inside the organization itself. We were there to say, “Those values you have, let’s bring them in here.” Connecting the external to the internal worked immediately, but they needed a little outside help to see it that way.

When an organizational culture puts agreement and harmony above all else, there is a clear dampening effect on minority voices and divergent viewpoints. People want to be positive and productive so much that they keep their mouth shut to ensure they’re not a “downer” or “causing too much trouble.” That seems thoughtful, but it actually does the organization a serious disservice; the first idea isn’t always the best one. The practices in place are often outdated and in need of fresh interpretation. Team cohesiveness isn’t always as important as individual ingenuity (gasp!).

This is the shadow side of agreement. Respectful-yet-dissenting voices are essential to the healthy evolution of an organization. So, the people within that organization must feel comfortable speaking up, even if it does rock the boat. It’s up to those in leadership roles to create a system of permission that will best serve the organization.

In Summer 2007, Leading Spirit began to help a board of directors with team coaching and training. In addition, we also provided organizational development consulting in support of their transition from a fiscally sponsored entity to a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

They looked to us to help formulate the organization’s trajectory and help them become more conscious of, and more aligned around, what the organization needed from them as leaders. They needed to clearly know what roles and responsibilities each of them would have moving forward, what kinds of conversations were necessary and worthwhile and how to deal with conflicts or differences of opinion.

We recognized their high positivity, productivity and hard work but showed them how their lack of conflict (and lack of skills around conflict) hurt them in the long run. This hadn’t been done in a conscious way before. No one really had clear permission to “step out of line” and express an individual viewpoint.

So, together we designed the organizational culture in an intentional way that would leave room for free expression and allow everyone to really know what’s going on when making decisions. They learned that what creates sustainability is the ability to speak the truth—that careful behavior actually erodes sustainability because you’re not having the conversations you need to have.

And through the course of our coaching together, they realized the importance of all their voices to informing the larger system. That now extends to the staff as well, as we’ve been able to facilitate retreats with the board and the staff all together. They’ve recognized the importance of those diverse opinions and voices in shaping and strengthening the organization as a whole. There was a level of carefulness that’s now been replaced by full trust and full permission to speak your mind, and they’re a much better organization for it.