When we talk about conflict resolution and difficult conversations, our cultural preferences show up even when we are not aware of them. Here’s the important thing: whether someone tends to choose open confrontation or seeks harmony, the intention and values behind this choice are usually positive.
If you grow up in a confrontation-comfortable culture, you most likely value openness and authenticity. Direct communication feels respectful – it is a signal to others “I don’t have a hidden agenda”. In meetings people challenge new ideas immediately even if they find these ideas “rubbish”. Missed deadlines? You bring it up directly: “I can’t accept it. Let’s fix it.”
If harmony is your inner motivation, you value group cohesion and tolerance. Who needs directness in communication if there’s no tact? In discussions people soften messages, wait for the right moment, or share concerns privately. Some topics like political positions are avoided to “keep peace.” Missed deadlines? You approach it gently or through context.
These preferences shape also how we experience conflict.
For confrontation-oriented people, disagreement is objective, it is a problem to solve, so differences in opinions should be made visible: “Let’s exchange our arguments to see where our positions differ”.
For harmony-oriented people, conflict is subjective and often feels personal and emotional, so the first step is to find common ground and protect relationships. Only then we discuss potential solutions and come to consensus.
That’s why tactics differ: open disagreement and argumentation vs. common base and consensus-driven conversations.
• Start with yourself. Understanding your own cultural preference – whether you lean toward confrontation or group harmony – helps you flex your behavior and avoid acting on autopilot.
• Agree together on how discussions should look: equal time for everyone, no interruptions, clear turn-taking, and respectful language. Shared rules make all styles safer.
• Give people multiple ways to speak up. Some feel comfortable in open meetings, others express themselves better in 1:1s or in writing. Offering these options makes contributions easier and team culture more inclusive.
• Slow down decisions when needed: make sure that even those who need time to reflect expressed their opinion (usually direct-speaking people benefit from fast decision-making process).
• End discussions with a shared understanding of who will do what by when. This prevents “surface harmony” – when people stay silent during the meeting but disagree afterward.
Conflict doesn’t have to divide a team: with the right approach and structure, it becomes a source of collective intelligence, creativity and innovation.
-p-3200.webp)