The following is a guest piece by HBR columnist (and fellow Canadian) Liane Davey.

I am a strong believer that the scarcity of high performing teams is due to our inability and unwillingness to engage in productive conflict. Often, the problem is too little conflict: teams filled with passive-aggressive members who would rather take their gripes underground. Sometimes, the problem is a dysfunctional or even vicious group who spend all their energy going back and forth instead of moving forward.

So if no conflict is a sure path to oblivion, but too much conflict is equally risky, how do we avoid going from ditch to ditch and instead find a path to productive conflict somewhere in the middle? The secret lies in changing your assumptions.

First, let’s start with a little experiment. Imagine the person on your team who rubs you the wrong way. This is someone you just don’t see eye-to-eye with. Somehow all of your interactions with this person are tense and uncomfortable—even over the most innocuous thing. Can you picture that person? Now I want you to imagine receiving this email from them… Click here to continue reading »

The following is a guest piece by Megan Totka.

People emerge or are elected as leaders in nearly every aspect of our lives, both personal and professional. While leadership does come in many ways, shapes, and forms, there are some people who go above and beyond when it comes to being a creative, inspiring leader. Thinking outside the box when it comes to your leadership style can be the difference in becoming a successful leader or one that people don’t look up to.

I would venture to say that many of us are somewhat immune to conventional leadership styles. That’s not to say that traditional approaches to leadership or management are totally ineffective. But taking the time to think about your leadership strategy and incorporate some ideas that are a little different can really affect those that you lead in a positive way.

While thinking about what to write about for the blog today, I came across an interesting article on Forbes that talked about taking leadership lessons from the military. Now you may be thinking, it doesn’t get more traditional than the military, which I happen to agree with. But not many of us use military-style leadership in our everyday lives, right? So you and your cohorts may not be as familiar with them.

Take a look at some of the military-style leadership tactics that could be effectively implemented as a measure to do things a little differently: Click here to continue reading »

With the end of the 2014 Sochi Winter Games on Sunday, many of us are now returning to our regular work routines and viewing habits, having a deeper appreciation for the world of sports and the power of the human spirit. In many ways, that’s probably the most interesting aspect about the Olympics – of how it not only draws us in on sporting events we otherwise wouldn’t follow, but how it also binds us together through that sense of camaraderie and kinship.

Of course, the other interesting aspect of the Olympics is how they provide a microcosm of cause-and-effect; where in the span of a few minutes we can see firsthand what all those years of training and sacrifice have given rise to.

This distilled concentration of human effort and achievement provides a unique backdrop from which we can glean new insights into how we can inspire those around us to believe in their potential to succeed and achieve more than they thought possible.

It’s from that perspective that I’d like to share the following three stories from these Winter Olympic Games where we can discover important lessons on what we need to do to become better leaders for those under our care.

1. Denny Morrison and Gilmore Junio – Putting others ahead of ourselves

When Denny Morrison crossed the finish line in the men’s 1000M speed skating final, the real story wasn’t his winning the silver medal. Instead, it was the fact that his team mate, Gilmore Junio, had given up his spot to allow Morrison to compete at the Sochi Olympic Games.

While competing in the Canadian Olympic team trials, Morrison lost his footing and fell to the ice, leading him to be disqualified from the team. Although Junio skated a clean run to qualify for the Olympic team, he knew that Morrison was the stronger skater and represented a better chance for Canada to get a medal in this event.

And so, Junio gave the spot he had earned for himself to compete at the Olympics to Morrison, saying that he had to so because it was “in the best interest of the team.”

But Junio did more than Click here to continue reading »

When it comes to discussions on leadership, there are certain constants or inevitable statements that you’re likely to come across. One of the most common of these stems from the ongoing debate over whether culture is more important than strategy in terms of the organization’s long-term success and viability.

Unfortunately, the popularity of debating the merits of one tactic over the other has recently given rise to a whole new set of either/or scenarios where leaders are encouraged to adopt one approach at the expense of the other. To date, some of the either/or scenarios I’ve seen debated include:

• vision vs. strategy
• knowledge vs. action
• people vs. results
• thinking vs. doing
• managing Millennials vs. every other workplace generation

Of course, it’s understandable why there’s a growing appeal for this approach – given the increasing complexity of leading organizations in today’s interconnected global economy, it’s only natural that we want to find quick answers to help us navigate these often choppy waters.

And yet, the problem with these zero-sum models is that they not only misdirect our focus from more urgent issues, but they also create more harm than good for the following reasons:

1. It overlooks the dualistic nature of these approaches
I’ve read recently a few articles where people have argued that the fast-pace of today’s market demands less focus on knowledge and thinking and more on action and doing. Of course, it’s easy to argue for a take-charge bravado when you’re not leading an organization still suffering from risk aversion thanks to the difficulties faced over the last few years.

That’s not to say that we need to do the inverse – of waiting until we have all our ducks in a row before we release our collective efforts out into the world. Rather, it means Click here to continue reading »