For more than ten years, Dr Heidi Mauersberger has been conducting research at the Chair of Social and Organisational Psychology at Humboldt University in Berlin. As well as emotion regulation, the quality of social interactions and the perception of pain, the psychologist focuses on a topic that most people encounter at some point in their lives: workplace conflicts. She was recently interviewed by the Tagesspiegel for an article which suggested that arguments in the office are not necessarily a bad thing. We have now spoken to the researcher to find out what a constructive culture of debate entails and how it can influence companies’ capacity for innovation.
To begin with, we’d be interested to know: what originally motivated you to conduct academic research into workplace conflicts?
I was fascinated by the fact that one and the same disagreement can play out in very different ways: it can lead people to develop better solutions – or it can cause lasting damage to their working relationship. Conflicts are inevitable in the workplace because people bring different perspectives, interests and ways of working to the table. What matters, therefore, is not just whether there is a disagreement, but how a conflict is perceived and handled. I am particularly interested in the emotional dynamics involved: when does a disagreement remain objective, and when do those involved feel personally attacked?
“Conflicts are inevitable in the workplace because people bring different perspectives, interests and ways of working to the table.”
What is the key question that is currently of particular interest to you in your research?
A central theme running through my research is the question of when a task-related conflict tips over into a relational conflict. Task conflicts, for example, involve differing views on how a problem should be solved or a task carried out. Relational conflicts, by contrast, are characterised by personal tensions, hurt feelings or disparagement.
I am interested in the emotional and communicative processes that facilitate this transition – and how it is possible to negotiate differing positions without damaging the relationship between those involved. Factors such as the interpretation of the other person’s behaviour, the quality of the interaction and how one manages one’s own emotions play an important role in this.
There are many assumptions about how conflicts in the workplace arise and unfold. In your view, what is the biggest misconception?
The biggest misconception is probably that conflict is inherently harmful and that a harmonious team is automatically a good team. A lack of dissent can also mean that employees do not voice their concerns, do not address mistakes, or go along with the majority opinion too readily.
At the same time, it would be equally wrong to portray every conflict as productive. Objective differences of opinion can open up new perspectives and improve decision-making. However, as soon as the dispute becomes personal, the potential benefits diminish significantly. The crucial question is therefore not: ‘Is conflict good or bad?’, but: ‘What kind of conflict are we experiencing, and how is it being handled?’
“The biggest misconception is probably that conflict is inherently harmful and that a harmonious team is automatically a good team. ”
Was there any finding during the course of your research that surprised you?
I was surprised by just how much even a personal element within a professional conflict can impair subsequent performance. Our research suggested that it is not merely the immediate experience of stress that is decisive here. Rather, the loss of mental energy appears to be particularly relevant.
Anyone who, during a professional dispute, also has to deal with belittlement, mistrust or personal tension subsequently has fewer resources available for the actual task at hand. Interpersonal conflicts are therefore not only unpleasant, but can actually leave people feeling completely drained. This shows why treating one another with respect is by no means merely a matter of good manners, but is also crucial to a team’s performance.
“Interpersonal conflicts are (…) not only unpleasant, but can actually leave people feeling completely drained. ”
Let’s take a look at how this works in practice: how can we foster a constructive culture of debate in day-to-day working life, and what role do managers play in this?
A constructive culture of debate emerges when differing viewpoints are explicitly permitted, whilst at the same time clear boundaries for how we interact with one another are in place. Criticism should relate to ideas, decisions or processes – not to a person’s character or competence. It is also important to address conflicts at an early stage, before negative interpretations and hurt feelings become entrenched.
Managers play a key role in setting an example here. Through their own behaviour, they shape whether dissent is seen as a valuable contribution or as a disruption. This includes being able to accept criticism themselves, admitting to uncertainties and intervening consistently in the event of personal attacks. A good manager does not prevent every conflict. Rather, they create conditions under which conflicts can be dealt with objectively.
Many staff members are reluctant to express their opinions openly. What specific steps can managers take to ensure this happens without employees having to fear negative consequences?
What matters most is how managers react to the first critical comment. If they thank the person for their objection, ask interested follow-up questions and give the argument serious consideration, they send out a strong signal. If, on the other hand, they react defensively or dismissively, or later punish the person in question indirectly, everyone present will very quickly learn that openness is not welcome.
It is also helpful to actively seek out counter-arguments before the manager themselves states their position. Otherwise, there is a risk that employees will simply go along with the decision. Psychological safety does not arise from a mission statement or the phrase ‘My door is always open’, but through repeated, concrete experiences: I can raise a problem, express a different opinion or admit a mistake without being personally disparaged for it.
“What matters most is how managers react to the first critical comment.”
How important is a company’s culture of debate to teams’ ability to innovate?
Innovation rarely arises when everyone is of the same mind from the outset. Teams need different perspectives, critical questioning and a willingness to challenge existing solutions. Objective dissent can help to identify weaknesses at an earlier stage, develop more alternatives and avoid hasty decisions.
However, this only works if employees actually voice their thoughts and other viewpoints are seriously considered. In a culture of debate characterised by personal attacks or fear, unconventional ideas are more likely to be held back. Relationship conflicts also tie up attention and energy that are then lacking for creative thinking. It is not the greatest possible amount of debate that fosters innovation, but rather the ability to use differences of opinion respectfully and productively.
How can you actually tell if a company has a healthy culture of debate, and at what point does a conflict become problematic?
A healthy culture of debate is characterised by the fact that staff can disagree, ask questions and even change their minds without losing face. Different perspectives are not merely tolerated as a matter of form, but are clearly taken into account in decision-making. Following a controversial discussion, those involved can continue to work together in a spirit of trust.
A conflict becomes problematic when the discussion shifts from the issue at hand to supposed personal characteristics: ‘You’re incompetent’, ‘It’s impossible to work with you’ or ‘You always do it like that’. Other warning signs include sarcasm, exclusion, recurring unresolved disputes, brooding over conversations and deliberately avoiding certain people or topics. At the very latest when employees stop voicing important objections in order to avoid negative reactions, action is needed.
“A conflict becomes problematic when the discussion shifts from the issue at hand to supposed personal characteristics: ‘You’re incompetent’, ‘It’s impossible to work with you’ or ‘You always do it like that’. ”
To conclude, let’s take a look at the practical side of things: if companies could implement just one measure from your research, which one do you think would have the greatest positive impact?
I would advise managers to make dealing with dissent a visible and integral part of their leadership routine. This means, for example, explicitly asking before important decisions: ‘What are the arguments against this proposal?’ or ‘What risks are we overlooking at the moment?’ It is then crucial not to justify or penalise the person raising the objection, but rather to acknowledge their contribution first and examine the substance of their argument.
This establishes a key principle: criticism of an idea is not an attack on a person, but a contribution to our collective work. When employees repeatedly experience that objective dissent is welcome and treated with respect, this not only improves the culture of debate, but also enhances the quality of decisions and the team’s capacity for innovation.
