Do you feel confortable when confronting with team members?

You are very right, Thomas.
Usually, when we seek comfort, we humans experience a lot of emotions. Because we don't know how to confront properly, we tend to shift our focus and not confront people, but rather confront a particular problem.
It's precisely because of these feelings that the person seeking consultation feels uncomfortable confronting the person in front of them. And the person in front feels attacked when someone confronts them.
That's why I understand that emotions aren't helpful in business, but they actually exist all the time, not just in business, because we're human beings and we possess emotions.
Recently, I've been delving into this topic and conducting training on effective communication and leadership. That's why I find it interesting, and that's why I raised this question, as I see it as a problem in many situations.

I can agree with you, Anil. Perhaps confrontation should happen in one-on-one conversations rather than in meetings involving the entire team. It's beneficial for these meetings to take place once emotions have been aired out, so we can have a constructive and rational discussion.

Thank you very much for the correction between "m" and "n".
Could you please clarify those four components of emotional intelligence, as there are many theories about emotional intelligence and I'm not sure exactly which four components you're referring to?
Also, I understand that confrontation can be both convenient and equally inconvenient depending on how connected we are to our inner world and how much we can detach from the emotions of other people around us and be connected only to our own.

William, I completely agree with what you're saying.
If 60% of projects fail due to problems stemming from ineffective communication and subsequently confronting 70% or more of projects fail due to poor communication.
From last year, I teach Leader Effectiveness Training by by Thomas Gordon method.

Do you know this model?

It's 60 years old, invented by an American psychologist, and implemented by companies like Amazon, BMW, and many others. It's precisely there that people learn about the issues you mentioned in your response. I teach exacly how to acquire these human relationship skills to get our work done and lead successful projects to completion.

Omar, I can't say anything more than!
I admire the response I'm reading, as I truly believe in those things too.
I believe that good relationships are built in situations where we don't have problems, and if we manage to build strong bonds within the team during those times, then when problems arise, we can navigate through them much more easily since we've already established solid relationships and connections.

Kevin,

If, as you say, these are seasoned experts in their field, they should appreciate that contention in the realm of competing ideas, approaches, strategies, and solutions is a value-based opportunity to compel an outcome beyond current argumentive positions.

If they agree with the above principle, then:

[1] They should agree that disagreeing with each other is an appropriate and agreeable position in the forming stage.

[2] They should agree to one of the following:

[A] – Use a neutral problem-solving approach/framework with a facilitator to “challenge out” the positions or resolve another.

[B] – Execute a small-scale “Proof of Concept” on their idea, approach, strategy, or solution with a mutually respected third party providing the review and decision.

Other options and variants of the above might be helpful, but maybe the above thoughts will trigger some ideas for your situation. Here’s an article that I wrote a few years ago that uses a strategy I call “Challenge-based Leadership,” which may assist: https://www.projectmanagement.com/articles...hip-do-for-you-

George

Kevin, I'm soryy for your situation, but it's clear that such situations always occur in teams, especially when they are just forming in the early phases of the project.

- Something that helps me a lot in this kind of situation is to see whether the misunderstanding stems from unmet needs or clashes of values differencies.
- The second thing I would do is to tell both parties that it's absolutely normal to have different viewpoints and not understand each other's perspectives.
- The third thing I would do is to work on empathy through various facilitation methods, including games.
I believe that these three would eventually lead to more open relationships, more sharing, and even if there is disagreement, it won't be destructive.

Danny, I understand you.
t's not easy to learn how to work with people, especially to be able to achieve your goals.
I learned when I became a mountain guide and had to lead people outside their comfort zone, deal with situations, and handle emotional breakdowns, to instill trust in people who can't walk for long periods or climb peaks. That's how I learned.
But something that really helped me was leadership training, like Thomas Gordon's Leader Effectiveness Training.
It impressed me so much that I started teaching it, and I'm currently forming my second group.
I recommend it to you. If it's available somewhere in Japan, you should look into it, or at least read the book. It provides a lot of valuable information.

I completely understand, but even when we address and focus on the problem rather than the people, it doesn't stop them from experiencing emotions related to that problem.
When we confront the problem, they feel as if we're personally confronting them because they're invested in the issue that caused the problem. The point I'm trying to make is that even confronting the problem doesn't mean that people will stop experiencing emotions from the confrontation.

I agree. That's right.