Design and construction firms often have some *big* personalities within. *Big* personalities could potentially encompass those who are: outspoken, bold, egotistical, always-right, impassioned ….you get the point.
As well, firms in the AEC industry almost always have a few *non-descript* personalities, including characteristics such as: soft-spoken, non-confrontational, quietly opinionated OR without much particular opinion at all, etc.
Of course, there are also personalities everywhere in between the spectrum, along with those personalities that waffle between one extreme and another.
As a firm leader, has it ever occurred to you to create static—even controversy—among your in-house staff? Maybe you have considered matching up various personalities…or connecting people with vastly different opinions, agendas, and styles?
In a world where many of us just want to ‘give peace a chance’ and dwell in a workplace environment that is collaborative, inspiring, even zen-like at times, you might wonder why in the world I would ask such questions about fueling controversy.
The topic triggered in my mind this weekend, when I was reflecting back on an old friend of mine in the industry. This co-worker and friend, (we’ll call her Laura), took great pleasure in hosting dinner parties. Not just regular, jovial fun-loving dinner parties like the one that we recently hosted and I blogged about. Rather, Laura wanted her parties to include ‘thoughtful’ discussion and debate. ‘Thoughtful’ in quotes, because in her world, that equated with controversy, whether she would admit it or not! For Laura, conversation was not interesting in the least unless there was disagreement to be sorted out. She would prepare her guest list with this goal in mind. She would even create seating charts to ensure that like-minded people were not sitting together.
Now, on the one hand, I semi-respected her interest in conflict and debate….because let’s face it, groupthink gets us nowhere. But on the other hand, when I wasn’t at work, I didn’t particularly want to be challenged over and over again on topics where I would prefer to show mutual respect and ultimately ‘agree to disagree’. And, I didn’t want for the dinner party on a Saturday night to be ‘work’.
I found when I would go to these (this was at least 15 years ago), I would arrive slightly tense, and I’d be relieved when it was over. Did I learn something? Yes, sometimes. Often, actually. But did I also feel exhausted from defending points or simply not wanting to think anymore? Indeed.
Laura entered my mind this weekend when we were attending a dinner party, and I was purposefully jockeying to sit beside people that I knew would be interesting, but ‘easy’. As always, I was in the mood to share open-minded experiences and ideas, but I was not in the mood to debate and experience controversy.
Still, to this day, I wonder if this is me being lazy. So circling back around to our industry, I am curious. Are there times when you set up discussion groups, company outings, office meetings, team meetings, or the like…..and purposely create an agenda or a format that encourages—even forces—specific people to interact in order to create controversy?
If the answer is yes to that question, how do you capture any positive fallout from the controversy?
If the answer is no, then is it something that you should consider—to stir things up and potentially create new ideas and solutions worth exploring?
Feel free to post a response or send me a direct message. Inquiring minds (at least mine!) want to know.