Register now or log in to join your professional community.
In today's world, it would be a mistake not to. Let people talk on both sides of the issue, listen carefully, avoid open criticism of those disagreeing and open praise of those in agreement, weigh the pros and cons carefully, take your own decision in the end, give proper feedback as to why you went one way and not the other.
It is better to listen to both. To know where l'm standing to make better decisions and improve my way of working
Listen to both. Address Disagreements and work on them
Both have their advantages and disadvantages, I would say that it is better to listen to both.
The temptation is to want to avoid conflicts due to what has been identified as "engagement phobia" and as a result of this singular fact, conflict avoidance is seen today as one of the most common divisive team behavior - everyone is a saint, not wanting to be the bad guy...you know what I mean.
However as Thomas and Kilmann rightly observed "conflict avoidance prevents teams from collaborating on important decisions" which simply means that conflict encourage collaboration and team cohesiveness, research also have shown that conflict can be a means by which teams can learn to work together more effectively.
Also conflict can be a stimulant to propel teams toward increased learning and skills. Team conflicts can create the spark for creative thinking that may lead to an innovative solution and better team integration.
On the other hand excessive agreement may lead to Groupthink problem.
