How to Handle Conflicts in Innovation Workshops

I once worked with a team that was, quite frankly, toxic. The same two team members routinely derailed meeting agendas. Eye-rolling was a primary form of communication. Side conversations overtook the official discussion. Most members had disengaged, emotionally checking out while physically present. Trust was nonexistent. This wasn't just unpleasant—it was preventing meaningful work from happening. The transformation began with a deceptively simple intervention: establishing clear community agreements. Not generic "respect each other" platitudes, but specific behavioral norms with concrete descriptions of what they looked like in practice. The team agreed to norms like "Listen to understand," "Speak your truth without blame or judgment," and "Be unattached to outcome." For each norm, we articulated exactly what it looked like in action, providing language and behaviors everyone could recognize. More importantly, we implemented structures to uphold these agreements. A "process observer" role was established, rotating among team members, with the explicit responsibility to name when norms were being upheld or broken during meetings. Initially, this felt awkward. When the process observer first said, "I notice we're interrupting each other, which doesn't align with our agreement to listen fully," the room went silent. But within weeks, team members began to self-regulate, sometimes even catching themselves mid-sentence. Trust didn't build overnight. It grew through consistent small actions that demonstrated reliability and integrity—keeping commitments, following through on tasks, acknowledging mistakes. Meeting time was protected and focused on meaningful work rather than administrative tasks that could be handled via email. The team began to practice active listening techniques, learning to paraphrase each other's ideas before responding. This simple practice dramatically shifted the quality of conversation. One team member later told me, "For the first time, I felt like people were actually trying to understand my perspective rather than waiting for their turn to speak." Six months later, the transformation was remarkable. The same team that once couldn't agree on a meeting agenda was collaboratively designing innovative approaches to their work. Conflicts still emerged, but they were about ideas rather than personalities, and they led to better solutions rather than deeper divisions. The lesson was clear: trust doesn't simply happen through team-building exercises or shared experiences. It must be intentionally cultivated through concrete practices, consistently upheld, and regularly reflected upon. Share one trust-building practice that's worked well in your team experience. P.S. If you’re a leader, I recommend checking out my free challenge: The Resilient Leader: 28 Days to Thrive in Uncertainty  https://lnkd.in/gxBnKQ8n

One of the toughest tests of your leadership isn't how you handle success. It's how you navigate disagreement. I noticed this in the SEAL Teams and in my work with executives: Those who master difficult conversations outperform their peers not just in team satisfaction, but in decision quality and innovation. The problem? Most of us enter difficult conversations with our nervous system already in a threat state. Our brain literally can't access its best thinking when flooded with stress hormones. Through years of working with high-performing teams, I've developed what I call The Mindful Disagreement Framework. Here's how it works: 1. Pause Before Engaging (10 seconds) When triggered by disagreement, take a deliberate breath. This small reset activates your prefrontal cortex instead of your reactive limbic system. Your brain physically needs this transition to think clearly. 2. Set Psychological Safety (30 seconds) Start with: "I appreciate your perspective and want to understand it better. I also have some different thoughts to share." This simple opener signals respect while creating space for different viewpoints. 3. Lead with Curiosity, Not Certainty (2 minutes) Ask at least three questions before stating your position. This practice significantly increases the quality of solutions because it broadens your understanding before narrowing toward decisions. 4. Name the Shared Purpose (1 minute) "We both want [shared goal]. We're just seeing different paths to get there." This reminds everyone you're on the same team, even with different perspectives. 5. Separate Impact from Intent (30 seconds) "When X happened, I felt Y, because Z. I know that wasn't your intention." This formula transforms accusations into observations. Last month, I used this exact framework in a disagreement. The conversation that could have damaged our relationship instead strengthened it. Not because we ended up agreeing, but because we disagreed respectfully. (It may or may not have been with my kid!) The most valuable disagreements often feel uncomfortable. The goal isn't comfort. It's growth. What difficult conversation are you avoiding right now? Try this framework tomorrow and watch what happens to your leadership influence. ___ Follow me, Jon Macaskill for more leadership focused content. And feel free to repost if someone in your life needs to hear this. 📩 Subscribe to my newsletter here → https://lnkd.in/g9ZFxDJG You'll get FREE access to my 21-Day Mindfulness & Meditation Course packed with real, actionable strategies to lead with clarity, resilience, and purpose.

After working with 353 companies in the last ten years, we've found that it’s not too much conflict that kills teams. It’s the fear of having any at all. Disagreeing well is one of the most important—and most overlooked—skills we now teach for today’s workplace. We put so much emphasis on teams "connecting well" and feeling "safe and seen". But what about disagreeing well, challenging each other in a safe way. Time after time, we hear our clients say that their people stay silent in meetings, avoid giving feedback, or default to just saying “thank you” when what they really mean is “I disagree but don’t know how to say it.” Last week alone, we were on a discovery call with a client and I asked what the team lead wanted out of our potential workshop: “I really want them to learn how to disagree professionally.” That’s it. Not how to avoid conflict. Not how to sugarcoat it. Just how to do it well (as a mature adult), and challenge someone’s idea without actually making them feel like they’re being challenged. We invented a method three years ago called Inquisitive Empathy to help teams do just that. At the core of it is this idea: when in doubt, ask better questions. Not accusatory questions. Not questions loaded with hidden judgments. But curious, calibrated questions that start with What or How. Not Why. Questions like: “What outcome were you hoping for?” or “How do you see this working across teams?” These questions help people feel seen, not attacked. They create space for reflection instead of reaction. And they open the door for mutual understanding—even in moments of tension. When people learn how to disagree well, everything changes. Conversations go deeper. Ideas improve. Respect grows. And most importantly, people stop avoiding the hard stuff—and start leaning into it, together.

We’ve all experienced those team meetings that don’t go as planned.  But what if I told you there’s a powerful way to turn things around? That power is respect. I once had a team divided over a project’s direction. Instead of choosing sides, I decided to listen. 𝘙𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 listen. I gave everyone my full attention and showed them that their opinions mattered. What happened next was incredible. The anger melted away. People started building on each other's ideas instead of tearing them down. We found common ground and suddenly, we weren't enemies. We were problem-solvers working towards the same goal. Respect isn’t just about being polite. It’s about truly valuing each other’s viewpoints, even when you disagree. It connects different perspectives and turns conflicts into opportunities for growth. So, the next time tensions rise, try this: 1. Create a safe space for open discussion. 2. Listen without interrupting. 3. Validate feelings, even if you disagree. 4. Look for shared goals. 5. Build on ideas instead of shooting them down. Lead with respect, and watch how it transforms your team. It’s not just about resolving one conflict. It’s about creating a culture where creativity and collaboration thrive.

We often observe highly diverse teams exhibiting patterns of dutiful compliance and stifling groupthink. While these diverse perspectives are dormant, the teams in question will never innovate. At least not consistently. How do you persuade a team to unlock its novel, nonlinear, and clashing perspectives to create an incubator of innovation — and do it in a way that doesn’t result in hard feelings, anger, or disrespect? It's not a diversity problem, but it is a culture problem. Think about the anatomy of culture this way: behaviors → habits → norms → culture If a pattern of shared behavior is a norm, a collection of norms is a culture. Norms are the primary building blocks of culture. In working with teams around the world for the last 30 years, I’ve identified the norm of constructive dissent as the single most important predictor of a team’s ability to innovate. ❓ What is constructive dissent? ✅ A team’s ability to engage respectfully in the exchange of conflicting viewpoints. While constructive dissent is a learnable behavior, it’s an extremely difficult norm to develop. It taxes the poise, composure, and emotional regulation of team members and often results in intense negative emotion and defensiveness. Teams don’t slouch into a pattern of constructive dissent, but with deliberate practice, they can build and sustain this crucial norm. But the change must start at the behavioral level. It must intervene in the day-to-day interactions of those doing the work. It must overcome the default norms and encourage healthy, constructive dissent as a professional obligation. It must be an invitation so clear, and so compelling, that it draws out the silent and the fearful. "If you disagree, I not only want to know, but I need to know. We can't innovate without your input."