A more inclusive work environment. If you want to have diversity and integration in your organization, you need to be prepared to disagree. Anesa Parker, Carmen Medina and Elizabeth Schill wrote in their rotman management the article “Diversity`s New Frontier: Diversity of Thought” that “While homogeneous groups are more confident in their performance, many groups are often more successful in accomplishing their tasks.” They also stated that leaders and employees must survive an “instinctive desire to avoid conflict” and “abandon the idea that consensus is an end in itself. In a well-managed and diverse team, substantive differences do not need to be personal: ideas either have merits and positions of connection, or they do not. This debate is important. We should be looking for fruitful differences of opinion, and that certainly implies an understanding of what the other side is saying. For example, Charles and Danielle`s obvious disagreement is not fruitful, as it is based on a misunderstanding of Charles`s words. But what does it take to understand each other? What would it take for Aurora and Bianca to really understand each other`s ethical opinions? Does understanding require the same thing when using phrases such as “moral obligation”? Or is the resemblance sufficient? The three main types of disagreements that people may have are listed below: Also try to be proactive in detecting disagreements between team members and addressing them immediately: 3. Values. People appreciate and deal with different things. A person thinks that more life in the universe is a good thing by nature, and so it is to increase the size of the population. Another would prefer to create less life if it kept existing people happier. A man wants to be called back after his death, while another person does not appreciate him because he knows that he cannot live this state of the world.
Utilitarians attach importance to the world that contains less suffering, the Cantians appreciate a world where certain universal rules are not violated, many people attach importance to the survival of animal species (even in cases where their survival does not benefit humans) and so on. There is nothing strange about the fact that different heads produce different labels for what is precious and has no value. However, sometimes a person`s values are logically inconsistent (z.B. the person pretends to evaluate X while devaluing Y without realizing that X and Y are the same thing). [Comment: In terms of values, the issues are tastes, preferences and interests. If you have a taste for chocolate rather than mushrooms, then you better go to the chocolate shop rather than the mushroom shop. A disagreement could then follow on the business in which you have to “go” between you and someone with opposite preferences. If you say “should” here, it can only express your preference, but the conversation may take the form of a disagreement about what to do.] Marguerite`s office was 30 blocks north of Manhattan. My boss suggested I stop on my way with the florist.
For a while, I wondered if it was better to be fired than to face daisy and what I had done, but he was right. And when I arrived in Marguerite`s office with an unreasonably large bouquet of flowers, she laughed. For her credit, she told me that it was happening, and that she preferred that the next time I disagreed with her, I would tell her so that we could talk about it. It was generous and helpful advice. But that doesn`t mean that all your differences of opinion will lead to conflict, because disagreements are just a word. It is how you react to these words that determines the likelihood that you will move forward in a conflict situation. 5. Logic error. Bad arguments are an important part of the abortion debate.