Conflict is inevitable. Safety is not.

The first step towards healthy conflict

In the last HI Stack, I explained how you can’t really have an encounter with AI. For example, when Larry David lashes out at Siri, there are no consequences. Siri won’t react, abandon or punish him, she just keeps repeating the same wrong answers. But with humans, conflict is risky. 

The need for safety in (human) relationships

Conflict is simply two or more opposing viewpoints on one issue. It’s inevitable. 

And yet, conflict has a bad rap. It whispers of past discomfort. The potential for being attacked, rejected or abandoned for speaking our truth activates fear and shame. Avoidance seems easier. Especially with how polarized everyone has become. 

Being able to distinguish useful conflict — the type that can lead to a new viewpoint — from destructive conflict which causes painful rifts, and knowing how to handle the tension, is an incredibly useful skill. It increases our ability to lead and be close to people. Closeness — intimacy — decreases loneliness, the epidemic of our times.

In subsequent Stacks, I’ll break down conflict coping skills such as narrating, reflecting back, and pre-empting to help build mastery. But the starting point for constructive conflict is establishing emotional safety. 

Recently an HR exec reported feeling overwhelmed. Staff were visibly upset but reluctant to explain why. I asked, “Do you think the space is safe?”

The exec, who was trained in nonviolent communication, paused. Sighed. “I’m not sure I know what that means anymore.”

She’s not alone. The term safe space has expanded in meaning since it wound its way from therapy rooms into popular culture. Does it mean a quiet place for highly sensitive people? Does it mean there’s a security guard standing outside? As a former therapist, a leadership and organizational consultant and someone who’s been in many different kinds of relationships, here’s my take. But first a quick history.

Safe Space became popular in the 1960s when gay and lesbian activists used it to describe spaces in which they could be themselves, free of cultural shame. We all need environments where our commonality shields us from misunderstanding and judgment from “the outside.” But the term originated in the 1940s with organizational psychologist Kurt Lewin, who gathered leaders in a group therapy-like process to face “their unhelpful assumptions, implicit biases, and behaviors that were holding them back.” Safe spaces started out as collegial gatherings where leaders could openly “share concerns without fear of being condemned for them, on the understanding that they’re hoping to change.”

So according to the originator, safe spaces were those in which people were encouraged to speak frankly, without fear of judgment, hostile defensiveness or being attacked for the purposes of growth.

I like this definition. It stipulates that in a safe space we are free to voice vulnerabilities and dissatisfaction, and even though we hope change will be the result, it doesn’t mean that it will. But a lot depends on HOW we communicate. That’s where safety comes in.

Creating safety (at work, for meetings and at home, for difficult conversations)

1. Set ground rules: Clear guidelines for meetings and tough conversations make the space safe. Invite all parties to envision what makes clear communication difficult, and devise a list of no more than five simple guidelines, e.g. no raised voices, no name calling, no blaming, pause before reacting, etc.

2. Set clear consequences: When the rules are broken, and because people make mistakes they likely will be, the consequences need to be clear: we’ll redirect the conversation, we’ll take five, etc. Ground rules and consequences must be distributed or repeated before meetings until everyone is clear on how to communicate and what to do if lines are crossed. 

3. Slow it down, with resonance: Establish a protocol of letting the person who spoke before you know you heard them by linking to what they said. This creates space for empathy and what is known in communications circles as resonance. Before jumping in with your ideas, connect to the other person’s first: I can see your point about X, here’s why I think Y would work better; Your idea is interesting, it’s in line with what I’ve been hearing from customers; What you said about Z makes sense. Resonance increases safety by slowing down the frenzy of everyone just waiting to say their piece, which leaves contributors feeling that their efforts were for naught. It doesn’t take much to say: I hear you, but it might take some labor to mean it. A critical moment of empathy can do wonders. 

4. Be mindful of tone: When someone raises their voice, it's easy to call out: volume is non-negotiable. But tone can be subtle and difficult to account for. Sometimes condescension is obvious, as when one frustrated employee barked in a meeting of higher-ups: why the fuck are we doing it this way? Other times, less so, as when someone is smiling, but their words are sharp. Sensitive people will react when opinions are voiced with contempt and hostility. And yet, since people and cultures experience tone differently, addressing it directly can open up a tangential can of worms that distracts: Why are you being defensive?; I’m not, I’m just stating my view! Stop being the tone police. You can minimize the poison in your own voice by remembering why you’re making your point and what you hope to accomplish by making it. When someone else’s tone is charged and you feel vulnerable, you can defuse it by owning your reaction: “I’m too worked up to truly get what you're saying ... let’s pause and try again.”  

These ground rules depend on everyone’s willingness to accept them. When all parties take safety seriously, it works. Norms are established. People feel authorized to express themselves. 

Tell me about your relationship to safety in the comments.

PS.  If you’re thinking this is too much work! Everyone regulating themselves doesn’t allow for authentic expression! The world should be safe, it’s not my responsibility to make it so! I hear you (really). We’ll get into that in a later HI stack: The truth about conflict and authenticity. Thanks for reading The Human Intelligence (HI) Stack! If you’re not already a subscriber, sign up: