The meeting unfolded, and Joe suddenly started to blame Frank. Becoming tense, Frank reacted, highlighting a variety of problems. The tension was noticeable, but others decided to remain silent. They saw it as a problem between Joe and Frank, assuming personalities had clashed.

While there is some logic to this interpretation, it is not the only one.

The presence of tension in the room can also be understood as a sign that some people are playing it safe, whereas others are seeking to understand the unsaid. Some wonder if it is them who didn’t capture all the information. Others assume that people decided not to share it. It converts into a power struggle, thus the tension.

Those playing safe have good reasons to do so. Whether it was their previous experiences in this team or in other teams, speaking up didn’t bring the results they expected, so they let it go. Those speaking up also have good reasons to do so. Some learned that doing so could stop others from asking difficult questions. Others see the tensions and want to address them. They believe that it is their responsibility to undo them.

Whatever it is, it is a dynamic that is centered on the presence of tensions. One that invites the different personalities in the room to react according to their preferences. Thus, sometimes leading to personal conflicts.

However, at the core of this is a dislike of challenges and a culture that prefers tensions to conflicts. Instead of creating a space in which challenges are welcome and allowing everyone to speak up, problems find themselves hidden in tensions.