So during this lecture we’ll be talking about cognitive conflicts and effective. So what it means when you basically allow rational processes to go into the outlook when you allow emotions in your view.
So basically what we need to see is the differences between the two. You need to understand them in order to understand complex and the easier it is or the faster we can recognize if it’s an effective or a rational conflict coming up then we can basically change it and kind of guy on the correct path.
The difference is the difference between the two is that an effective conflict is leaning towards the individual that you are in the fight. And of course that is lead to the issue. So complex cognitive conflicts can be used in order to solve issues they are linked to the processes that the procedures to the rational judgment that people have at it is not aimed towards the person.
This is why when using it you can basically create new ideas because everybody kind of brings in their own point of view and you get to listen to everybody’s ears and then you kind of get a feel of what should happen on what is everyone’s point of view. This happens when you create this kind of environment affective conflicts.
Focus on the feelings of persons. They focus on who is right instead of what is right. This is why they can’t be productive because the attention shifts from what is right to who is right and instead of talking about the issue at hand you kind of resort to sarcasm or heard the jokes or the conflict is based on your feelings of mistrust or of fear or of anger toward the other person. So this is why they can be constructive.
A cup of coffee for example deciding marketing budget if it should go to the best servers that we already have. Or if it should go to the new comers on the market then we can argue that. And actually then we can use rational thoughts and reasoning in order to promote one that we are worthy of an effective conflict with be you asking for a refund and they’re saying you it’s not possible then you’re telling them they’re evil or they’re a cheat or they’re trying to scam.
That won’t help solve the problem because your attention has shifted to the person from the problem. OK. So it’s possible for a conflict to go from affective or cognitive to go from what’s right to who’s right.
It’s kind of a two way street so they can both they can go in both directions. This is what we need to keep in mind because once we recognize that we can steer it to a correct path where we can basically learn from it and use it as an experience to grow affective conflicts should be avoided because they don’t actually help solve the problem.
As I said they’re focused on the person they’re focused on what’s right and who’s right rather than what’s right.
You start judging people you start using sarcasm you start using mean jokes or personal criticism. This won’t help on basically cognitive conflict can help differences of opinion generate new ideas. They encourage the sharing of new experiences. They encourage creating a different idea and a different work environment.
OK. So now also let’s talk a bit about the potential pitfall about what each of the what each of these means. And also there are barriers to words. The success of process this whole process. So let’s say barriers for Cartland of let’s say that there is a few hierarchy organizational structure or individuals.
let’s talk a bit about each of them so that you can understand. Let’s go through the first urushiol let’s fake about companies about organization where there is an unspoken rule that the subordinates do not challenge the leader or the boss best is unspoken but it happens. Think about organizations that functions well that function with the belief that if you challenge your boss then you’re creating problems. They’ll keep to yourself.
You won’t say your opinions you say what are you and maybe nothing will actually change for the better. It will actually go for the worse. The next one will be organizational culture.
Think about it again. Let’s go into organizations where conflict is discouraged on the belief that all conflict is bad and people again tend to keep to themselves. They do not want to challenge their superiors. They do not want to challenge the status quo.
Also the belief that if you create conflicts or if you disagree with people you become the black sheep you become the person that is searching for this and you become disliked. For this reason they don’t challenge their managers for this reason. They don’t come with problems towards their boss.
The next one will be individuals imagine the dominant figure and let’s say for example in school high school journals or whatever there is groups of people and each of those groups there’s somebody who is more dominant than the others and that person can reject ideas can reject conflict can reject reject contradicting ideas of his beliefs. This also stops and basically blocks cognitive conflict because the eight years are never spoken.
The ideas are a challenge. And actually one of the pitfalls from too much cognitive conflict is the dissolution of the actual ideas. Once we try to integrate anybody’s opinions or everybody’s change into ideas into these ideas then we can basically maybe create a let’s say worst idea and before if we want integrate everybody’s ideas.
If instead of doing event for one day we decide to break it into five days instead of choosing just one emotion and decide to just feed different feelings because we want to address everybody’s needs that might actually create the idea a bit worse.
You need to not lose focus of your interest and your search for work there’s a lack of cognitive conflict there’s a lack of innovation. As I said before the example with the train you need to have a conflict. Conflict leads to innovation.
The lack of cognitive conflict needs to the lack of innovation of creative processes and of change the companies the organisations societies which have integrated and accepted the most change are basically the most prosperous because they have challenge their ideas. This is why we need to take into account that conflict can be used either as a constructive force or as a destructive force.