People disagree when they hold opposing views, opinions, or positions. The struggle is over who is right or whose argument is stronger.
When people confront, they often pose a direct challenge to the rules, standards, or values governing the relationship or team.
Confrontation expresses dissatisfaction over the other party’s violation of an implicit or explicit rule. Through confrontation, people attempt to reaffirm the rules and standards they want the relationship to honor.
For instance, when a leader confronts a team member about disclosing confidential information, the leader is asserting that discretion is a core relationship rule they expect to be upheld.
Through this struggle, both parties negotiate the rules and standards that will define the relationship and dictate future behavior.
Confrontation is an essential episode in any healthy relationship. Both parties negotiate the reality they wish to live in by affirming and reaffirming the rules and values important to them.
Contrary to popular wisdom, only a subset of confrontations is emotionally charged or carries a direct challenge or accusation. Heated, explicit moments like these occur far less frequently than quieter, more indirect forms of confrontation.
Skillful communicators and leaders know that direct confrontation can be explosive and easily escalates conflict over the rules. So they have learned to confront more subtly and indirectly.
Consider the conflict between a leader and a team member who discussed team strategy with a more senior manager without the leader’s permission.
A direct confrontation might begin with the declaration: “You don’t discuss our team strategy with anyone above me without asking first. I was blindsided by their questions without even knowing what they had been told.”
A more indirect confrontation mightgo like this: “I know how curious senior leaders can be about our team strategy, but please confer with me before sharing any information. I don’t want to be blindsided.”
Direct confrontation typically carries blame, accusation, and admonishment for past behavior, while indirect confrontation offers a request or suggestion about future behavior. The former creates defensiveness and resistance, while the latter gets the rule or standard out in the open without negativity or recrimination.
Here’s another example of direct and indirect confrontation with a team member who arrived unprepared for a client meeting.
Direct: “Your lack of preparation for a client is unacceptable. You embarrassed yourself. You need to live up to the same standards as the rest of the team.”
Indirect: “It’s our obligation to be prepared for client meetings. I want you to work hard to be ready and well-versed before every one.”
Indirect confrontation focuses more on the rule or standard than on the person. The emphasis on the future makes the assertion less inflammatory while also reducing the need for the other party to defend themselves.
Without regular confrontation, relationships accumulate violations that pile up and fester. Once the buildup finally bothers someone enough to speak up, they usually explode with direct accusation.
Such a blowup has the potential to harm the relationship. That’s why the art of indirect confrontation is so important. Relationships require confrontation to negotiate a stable and strong future, but they can’t absorb continual combustion and maintain any sense of harmony.
Good leaders do their best to confront indirectly with an eye toward future behavior. They resist the temptation to look backward and admonish people for what they have already done.
