Why the best teams don’t avoid arguments

We tend to think of conflict as something to avoid. A problem. A sign that relationships are breaking down. 
 
Look closely at the teams that consistently deliver results and you will notice something different: they argue. They challenge each other. They don’t all agree. 
 
The difference is how they do it. 

Why no conflict is a warning sign

When a team says it has no conflict, that’s not a compliment. It’s usually a sign of avoidance. People are holding back, swallowing concerns, and saying what’s safe rather than what’s true. 
 
Harvard professor Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety shows that the most effective teams are not the most harmonious. They are the ones where people speak up, admit mistakes, and disagree openly. 
 
Google’s Project Aristotle backed this up. After analysing 180 teams, the single biggest predictor of team success wasn’t strategy or talent. It was psychological safety — the belief that you can speak up without punishment. In practice, that meant more disagreement, not less. 
 
Conflict itself isn’t the enemy. Avoidance is. 

The science of conflict 

Open disagreement improves performance because: 
 
- Diverse thinking beats groupthink. Scott Page’s research shows diverse perspectives outperform homogenous groups on complex problems. That only works if people are willing to voice their differences. 
- Disagreement signals engagement. Neuroscience suggests that when people feel heard and respected, dopamine and oxytocin rise, increasing motivation and connection. 
- Repair strengthens trust. John and Julie Gottman’s research shows relationships survive not because conflict is absent, but because people know how to repair afterwards. Perpetual problems exist in our personal relationship and at work with different working styles, personality clashes, value differences. The healthiest teams or couples don’t fix these, they manage them constructively.

What conflict intelligence looks like

In conflict-intelligent teams: 
 
- Issues are raised early, before they calcify into resentment. 
- Ideas are challenged without attacking the individual. 
- Curiosity replaces certainty. Leaders ask to understand, not to win. 
- Repair is quick. Trust is rebuilt, not eroded. 
 
These are not soft skills. They are profit-related behaviours. A global study by CPP Inc. estimated that workplace conflict costs U.S. businesses $359 billion every year in lost productivity. That’s the commercial price of avoidance.

Relationships at work are what drain us, what we take home, what keep us awake at night. We didn’t need research to know this, we’ve all experienced it.

Three practical ways to build it: 

1. Frame the problem as shared. Shift the lens from me vs you to us vs the issue. Negotiation research shows that joint problem-solving leads to better outcomes and deeper trust. I often picture it as putting the problem in a box on the table — outside of us — so we can stand side-by-side and look at it together.
2. Ask about intent. Most conflict escalates because we assume motives. Questions change that. Asking “What outcome are you aiming for?” lowers defensiveness and surfaces common ground. 
3. Repair quickly. Apologies restore respect and reset the relationship. It’s the speed of repair, not the absence of conflict, that matters most. 

I see this play out in leadership programmes every week. The breakthrough moment is when someone realises that conflict is not a breakdown of relationship, it’s an expression of it. 
 
I’ve also lived it. Working alongside my dad means plenty of disagreements. We don’t pretend they are not there. We repair fast and get back to what matters: progress. 
 
If your team avoids conflict, you are not avoiding risk. You are multiplying it. The goal isn’t harmony, it’s honesty. And honesty, handled well, is what drives better decisions, deeper trust and stronger performance. 
 
Conflict intelligence isn’t nice to have. It’s a competitive advantage. 

References

• Google re:Work. (2016). Project Aristotle.

• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly.

• Page, S. (2007). The Difference.

• Zak, P. (2017). The Neuroscience of Trust. Harvard Business Review.

• Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to Yes.

• Gottman, J. & Gottman, J. (2015). The Science of Couples and Family Therapy.

• Brown, B. (2018). Dare to Lead.

• CPP Inc. (2008). Workplace Conflict and How Businesses Can Harness It to Thrive.
  
  Some of the research for this piece was supported by OpenAI’s ChatGPT, alongside primary sources listed below.