A conflict-free meeting isn’t a win

The author, with 25 years of experience working with executive teams, argues that many teams struggle not because of the conversations they have, but because of the ones they avoid. A seemingly conflict-free meeting where decisions are made without pushback can mask underlying issues, as evidenced by subsequent private conversations and messages revealing dissent or frustration that was not voiced in the group setting. This silence is often a rational choice driven by a deep-seated need to belong, as neuroscientists at UCLA have found that social exclusion activates similar brain regions to physical pain. Individuals may refrain from disagreeing or voicing uncomfortable truths to avoid being perceived negatively or damaging valued relationships, with a secondary reason being the belief that speaking up would not effect change. Leaders play a significant role in shaping this silence by signaling what kind of feedback they are receptive to. The rise of distributed teams and video conferencing further exacerbates this issue, as the lack of in-person cues makes it easier for individuals to remain silent, and disagreements that might have occurred in person are now relegated to private messages that do not reach the wider group.