What is your view on Constructive Arguments ?

Constructive arguments/debates are necessary and are in fact one of the key reasons we as individuals and as a society progress at all. In order to improve we need to argue/debate that something is either wrong, can be improved or is complimentary by its addition.

Kiron

Thanks a lot for your input.

I do not disagree on the use of the word Argument and I agree with what you've mentioned but what if that conflict changes to an argument ? I know some might say that an argument and a conflict are the same, but they are not.

RK

I prefer calling it a “Pick-Persuade Path” . To make sure the team work be finished successfully or the target be achieved effectively, discussing often hold by facilitators. One theme or two themes should be clarified by facilitator before organize a formal or informal meeting or discussing. Through the argument, team members come up with various of personal opinion. The facilitator should control the process to make sure the argument developing towards the "right" direction. While the argument finished, a result should be picked up as a reliable suggestion or solution. However this kind of discussing is not a negotiation, I don't think we need to consider the "win-win" result or "win-loss" result. If necessary, the only thing we need to do after the argument is to persuade those "losers" trust the opinion of the "winner", and follow the final decision.

Dear Rami
Very interesting your question
Thanks for sharing

Conflict can always be viewed positively:
- Bring change
- Encourage participation
- Serve as safety valve
- Represent a power source
- Favor internal cohesion

But they can be viewed negatively:
- They drag to conformism
- Consume resources
- Offset from objective
- They raise suspicion

It depends on the paradigms of the people who are involved in the conflict.

There is a proposal by two psychologists for conflict management Thomas-Kilmann model (known to almost all of us)

The PMI, in addition to this model (5 possible ways to resolve the conflict) proposes to use confrontation (speak in situations as soon as possible in order to find a win-win solution)

It is also important to note that there is a typology for conflicts:
- Objective conflicts
- Judgment Conflicts
- Normative Conflicts

The best structured approach I've read about the most appropriate way to resolve conflict is Stephen Covey's proposal for "public victory" in the 7 habits of highly effective people (Habit 3: Thinking Win-Win, Habit 4: Understanding First Before Being understood and Habit 5: Creating Synergy)

The paradigm is either win-win or nothing done (which in some ways resembles the PMI Confrontation)

Without differing views, you will never uncover alternative/better solutions. As previously mentioned, the key to successful debate is to be constructive, not critical. To accept that working together can bring different viewpoints and solutions.

Having a moderator can help, but as I PM I often play that role and mediate between opposite sides of a discussion.