Navigating Conflicts in Cross-Functional Innovation Teams

A few weeks ago, my morning started with the kind of call every executive coach both dreads and relishes: “Keri, our leadership team is stuck. We’re sharp, but lately, it feels like we’re rowing in different directions and the tension is growing.” A few days later, I was in the boardroom with eight high-powered executives, each with a different vision, all fiercely committed but quietly frustrated. You could feel the undercurrent: eye contact avoided, ideas shot down before they landed, and a sense that everyone was waiting for someone else to blink first. Here’s the truth: Conflict isn’t the enemy. Misalignment is. When leaders avoid tough conversations, small rifts become canyons, and innovation (or being solutions oriented) stalls. So, we got real. We started with a behavioral intelligence exercise, mapping out not just what each leader wanted, but why they wanted it. We surfaced the stories beneath the positions: ~ the fear of losing relevance ~ the desire to protect a team ~ the drive to win When you name what’s really at stake, the conversation shifts from “me versus you” to “us versus the problem.” By lunchtime, something remarkable happened. The team stopped debating WHO was right and started asking, “What does success look like for all of us?” We built a shared vision, clarified roles, and created space for healthy disagreement, because aligned teams don’t avoid conflict, they harness it. As I left, one executive pulled me aside and said, “I forgot what it felt like to be on the same side of the table.” That’s the power of alignment: It doesn’t erase conflict, it channels it into progress. If your team is stuck in the swirl, remember: Real alignment isn’t about everyone agreeing. It’s about everyone owning their part in building something bigger than themselves. What’s one conversation your team needs to have, but hasn’t yet? #DayInTheLife #ExecutiveCoaching #TeamAlignment #ConflictToClarity #KLES

At Microsoft, I learned that embracing cognitive diversity is the key to solving complex problems and driving innovation. But it didn’t come without its challenges. I vividly remember early days in cross-functional teams where conflict seemed inevitable. The Generators would dream big, throwing out bold, unstructured ideas. The Optimizers pushed back, demanding practical plans and immediate structure. Conceptualizers would dive deep into strategy, while Implementers were already asking, “When can we start?” It felt chaotic—like we were all speaking different languages. But over time, I realized that this tension wasn’t a weakness. It was our greatest strength. Min Basadur’s Cognitive Diversity Model opened my eyes: 1. 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 create possibilities. 2. 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗿𝘀 build strategic frameworks. 3. 𝗢𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗿𝘀 bring structure and refine. 4. 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 turn plans into action. The conflicts weren’t about “who’s right.” They were about how we solve problems differently. The breakthrough came when we stopped trying to “fix” the tension and started leveraging it. 1. We let Generators challenge limits. 2. Conceptualizers crafted blueprints. 3. Optimizers ensured feasibility, and better, faster, cheaper. 4. Implementers delivered results. Cognitive diversity taught me that innovation thrives on collaboration, not conformity. Call to Action: How do you navigate cognitive diversity in your teams? Have you experienced the tension between vision and execution—and turned it into a superpower? #leadership #innnovation #Microsoft

We often observe highly diverse teams exhibiting patterns of dutiful compliance and stifling groupthink. While these diverse perspectives are dormant, the teams in question will never innovate. At least not consistently. How do you persuade a team to unlock its novel, nonlinear, and clashing perspectives to create an incubator of innovation — and do it in a way that doesn’t result in hard feelings, anger, or disrespect? It's not a diversity problem, but it is a culture problem. Think about the anatomy of culture this way: behaviors → habits → norms → culture If a pattern of shared behavior is a norm, a collection of norms is a culture. Norms are the primary building blocks of culture. In working with teams around the world for the last 30 years, I’ve identified the norm of constructive dissent as the single most important predictor of a team’s ability to innovate. ❓ What is constructive dissent? ✅ A team’s ability to engage respectfully in the exchange of conflicting viewpoints. While constructive dissent is a learnable behavior, it’s an extremely difficult norm to develop. It taxes the poise, composure, and emotional regulation of team members and often results in intense negative emotion and defensiveness. Teams don’t slouch into a pattern of constructive dissent, but with deliberate practice, they can build and sustain this crucial norm. But the change must start at the behavioral level. It must intervene in the day-to-day interactions of those doing the work. It must overcome the default norms and encourage healthy, constructive dissent as a professional obligation. It must be an invitation so clear, and so compelling, that it draws out the silent and the fearful. "If you disagree, I not only want to know, but I need to know. We can't innovate without your input."

Let’s talk about something that makes people uncomfortable: Conflict*.* Conflict isn’t just inevitable--it’s essential for innovation. Without it, we risk letting untested ideas become “solutions.” When this happens, it’s the customer who suffers. But here’s the kicker: Conflict doesn’t have to be negative or personal. I’ll never forget a project where conflict changed the game. We were in the middle of building a new feature set, and two teams had VERY different ideas on how to implement it. It got heated. Developers had their vision, product managers had theirs, and it could have easily spiraled into a battle of egos. But instead of letting that friction turn into personal negativity, we *channeled it* into a debate focused on the ideas, not the people. What happened next was magic. 👇 Through tough, open discussions, each side brought insights the other hadn’t considered. We challenged assumptions, asked hard questions, and tore down weak ideas together. The end result? A solution that was far better than anything we had originally envisioned. And most importantly, it was a win for the customer. That’s the power of conflict when it’s done right. 🚀 Here’s what I’ve learned: → Healthy conflict fuels progress. We need to welcome different perspectives and use that tension to refine and test ideas. → Respect is the foundation**.** Conflict only turns ugly when it becomes personal. Keep it about the ideas, not the individuals. → It’s not about winning. The goal isn’t to prove your point--it’s to find the best solution. That mindset shift makes all the difference in how conflict is managed. So, the next time there’s tension in the room, don’t shy away from it. Lean in. Encourage your team to challenge ideas, but set the tone for *respectful* and *constructive* dialogue. Those debates will create the breakthroughs that drive real innovation. How do you foster healthy conflict in your teams? Let’s share some insights in the comments below.👇

At Amazon, two of my top engineers had a shouting match that ended in tears. This could be a sign of a toxic workplace or a sign of passion and motivation. Whether it becomes toxic or not all comes down to how management deals with conflict. In order to deal with conflict in your team, it is first essential to understand it. A Harvard study has identified that there are 4 types of conflict that are common in teams: 1. The Boxing Match: Two people within a team disagree 2. The Solo Dissenter: Conflict surrounds one individual 3. Warring Factions: Two subgroups within a team disagree 4. The Blame Game: The whole team is in disagreement My engineers shouting at each other is an example of the boxing match. They were both passionate and dedicated to the project, but their visions were different. This type of passion is a great driver for a healthy team, but if the conflict were to escalate it could quickly become toxic and counterproductive. In order to de-escalate the shouting, I brought them into a private mediation. This is where one of the engineers started to cry because he was so passionate about his vision for the project. The important elements of managing this conflict in a healthy and productive way were: 1) Giving space for each of the engineers to explain their vision 2) Mediating their discussion so that they could arrive at a productive conclusion 3) Not killing either of their passion by making them feel unheard or misunderstood Ultimately, we were able to arrive at a productive path forward with both engineers feeling heard and respected. They both continued to be top performers. In today’s newsletter, I go more deeply into how to address “Boxing Match” conflicts as both a manager and an IC. I also explain how to identify and address the other 3 common types of team conflict. You can read the newsletter here https://lnkd.in/gXYr9T3r Readers- How have you seen team member conflict handled well in your careers?