Disagree Better: Debunking the Myths of Conflict, with the CHRO for the State of Utah

Mo:  

Welcome to today's episode of People and Strategy. I'm your host, Mo Fathelbab, president of International Facilitators Organization. People and Strategy is a podcast from the SHRM Executive Network. The premier network of executives in the field of human resources. Each week, we bring you in depth conversations with the country's top HR executives and thought leaders.

For today's conversation, I'm excited to be joined by John Barrand, CHRO of the Utah government. Welcome, John.  

John:  

Thanks, Mo. It's great to be here.  

Mo:  

Great to have you with us, John. John, I want to start with your journey and how you got into your role as a CHRO.  

John:

Sure. No problem. I often have to start with, um, way back when, and I would say that the most impressionable years of my life, uh, in the Boy Scouts of America and working in the retail environment, AKA being a server in a restaurant, uh, to get some college spending money were probably some of the most impactful reasons, uh, and jobs. Um, for me becoming an HR professional, I learned that I loved solving complex human problems.

I learned that I love finding the most, the best, best opportunity for discretionary. I didn't go down the restaurant management site, but, um, instead, we got my MBA at Purdue University, ended up securing a gig with Procter and Gamble, um, and dabbled around the Midwest for a while, worked at private equity gig, um, and opened up a few more restaurants.

I've opened up, Twenty five restaurants in my life, none of it being my dollars, and I think, um, there should be a law run that every person who ever works, um, in the American workforce needs to work either retail or restaurant, uh, it teaches you a lot about customer service, uh, and typically with really low margins, so, again, really important learning points for me, I, I moved to Utah, I don't have family or, or relatives here, Um, I moved to Utah to be the head of HR for a back country.

It's an e commerce retail company up in park city. Um, I do have my family in Idaho, so a short six hour drive away. It was nice to get back, uh, closer to family, but, um, I started dating, uh, A girl who lived in the UK and 2018 spent a lot of time in the UK. I thought we were moved into UK, secured a job, um, and was about ready to really change my life.

And on a Saturday night, I was walking out of Thai food here in Salt Lake City. And I got a call from a guy named Spencer Cox. And, um, I didn't know who it was. He had just won the governorship for the state of Utah and was looking to build his cabinet. And, um, I said, I don't think you know me. Uh, I'm, I just came from Cook County, Illinois and may not have some of the same standings or it goes team of rivals.

And, um, we had a real robust conversation about what he wanted to do and what is typically known as a bureaucratic and slow moving institution, state government. Um, he gave me a long leash. Uh, I. I had to turn down another job to come be his chief HR officer. And I'll tell you, um, I work for a politician, but I'm not in politics.

Um, and it's been wonderful to be able to develop, deepen and modernize state government. I've enjoyed the ride. I still like to say, I'm an aspiring CEO, so I've still got a lot to learn. And the public sector is really different in relation to private. So engaging, uh, with colleagues in the executive network has been wonderful to, to groom and teach me to be a stronger leader. It's been, it's been a wonderful four years.  

Mo:  

Well, first of all, I want to go back to this retail experience, which I've had myself, and I would say another thing you learn in that environment is humility, which you have displayed already in what you've shared with us. So thank you for that. So the other thing that obviously we're going to dig into here is, is the Disagree Better initiative. Uh, so how did you get into that and, uh, maybe tell us that backstory?  

John:  

Yeah, very good. I'll, I'll parlay Governor Cox's introduction. And I know we're starting heavy in politics, but I assure you we'll get out of it, but it's my CEO. My CEO is the governor of the state of Utah. And he was running for his, in his gubernatorial campaign in 2020. And that was a really tricky year for America. We all know it. We all quote it, the summer of the George Floyd murder, COVID and alienated Americans. Um, there was not a distraction that, as everything became critical in reaction, meaning, how we handled COVID, how personally we reacted to COVID, Governor Cox had spoken publicly about all this and he was on his campaign trail and he continuously was told that he would widen the gap if he used contempt as a tool.

So why don't you get in there and polarize and we've, we've been. We've been sensing that as common citizens, as citizens in America, right? We've, we've sensed this consent. He spent time referencing readings from Brian Stevenson, the equal justice initiative, uh, just mercy. If you will, Brian talks a lot about getting proximate to problems and proximity gives you insights that you can't learn from a distance.

So his political strategists were saying, why would you ever get proximate to your competition? By the way, you're the Republican Candidate in a Republican, we haven't gone Democrat in Utah in 60 years. Why would you even give this Democratic candidate a platform on which to speak? You're only doing him a favor, but against the wishes of the political strategists that he had hired. He put him and his Democratic candidate in a commercial that said, Hey, um, we may disagree, but we're going to learn to disagree better. We're going to honor the outcome of the election.  

If you remember, that was kind of like red meat and vitriol in the environment at that time. They both loved America. They both loved Utah, even though they thought it should be managed maybe differently. The video went viral. Um, I, I actually think I heard about it in the UK when I, when I was meeting with him, I remember thinking about it. They sent it to the standard Stanford polarization lab, and they found that when you put the competition in the same room, you can depolarize or you can lower the temperature of the, um, of the vitriol.

And so he then became, and I know this is somewhat long winded, he then became the chairman of the National Governors Association. And what that is, is all 50 governors get together on a quarterly basis, typically in DC, right? And they talk about how they can as governors actually do some work to progress things.

And he became the chair on his second year as governor. Now, typically, um, the chair has an initiative and they talk about the high cost of housing or energy or, or right land. Uh, how they deal with land. Um, but he, he always said you can't solve the world's biggest problems if they all hate each other. So instead of going after health, health care or housing, he, he launched the disagree better initiative.

Um, and that opened a ton of doors with us. We've had over 25 governors. Create the same messaging, these PSAs that we've done my team, the LOD team, um, DHRM, the department's human resource management has really picked this up over the last year. Um, as we attempt to lower the temperature of polarization, hate in the political landscape, but also there's significant impact in our space, right?

So, uh, we've been invited to, to train the Utah state legislature. Uh, we, we talk about this group better, even in our correctional facility. We recently just wrapped up his initiative that had a visit from Matthew McConaughey, who said we need to take the microphone back from the extremes. And also President Zelenskyy from the Ukraine showed up for a few minutes and talked with us.

So we've had a lot of success with Disagree Better and that kind of liaises and parlays where I came from and how we got here to talk about Disagree Better.  

Mo:  

I love it. And I also remember you saying, uh, in our prep conversation that you all have trained 3800 of your managers at the state level in this disagree better initiative. Is that tell us more about that?  

John:  

Yeah. So, we, of course, always working on stronger performance management. Um, we have, I, I always say I have 21 unique business units. That's a public private sector way of saying it. Our business units are public safety, workforce services, right? Health and human services, E\each one of them, of course, have their hierarchy and managers. They're all very different business units. They're all very different agencies that serve very different parts of the public. We have 3, 800 managers and 22,000 employees. So, um, we've been really pressing performance management and not just the operation side, but how we create stronger succession planning and what stepping into conflict looks like.

So, um, our team, the DHRM team, the, the trainers of that, of our organization have really jumped in. And we've create, we, first of all, we got certified in something called crucial conversations, um, which is a great external group that works with teaching you how to step into conflict and to identify what conflict is.

It's either task, um, so the what, um, or it's the who, or it's contempt. And we've got to learn to abandon the contempt, but we're having great success. We're, we're watching. I, I don't know if it's correlation causation, but we're seeing great, great numbers in our ENPS scores and our surveys and, um, in the pride of working for the state of Utah, as well as our attrition, we're, we're really, I think we're impacting this on a positive note right now, for sure. 
 
Mo:  

I got to tell you, I mean, a lot of companies are afraid to have these conversations and to see that a government is leading the way in doing this. Quite impressive. So kudos to you.  

John:  

Well, thank you. We're, we're having fun doing it. I will say it doesn't come without its risks, its myths, or, um, some outputs. As one example, you have to know what's appropriate to talk about at work. Now I live in a political world, so talking about transgender issues can be a thing. However, do I think that the HR recruiter needs to talk about that with the finance manager one on the way in the door? Probably not. So one of the first things is make sure we have a box of understanding What type of conversations are appropriate because while we're dealing with conflict doesn't mean we need to deal with every type of conflict.

SHRM itself has said that 44 percent of employees have felt dismissed due to a politically charged conversation in the workforce now. I'm not suggesting I'm welcoming in all of those conversations into our zeitgeist or into our daily meetings. Um, we, we do need to know how to either push those away or, or maybe not welcome every one of those politically charged conversations.

But when we do get in that space. What are we doing to solve it, for sure?  

Mo:  

Let's dig into these myths. Yeah, so let's, let's, uh, first tell us what the myths are, and then let's talk about each one of them.  

John:  

As we've talked about Disagree Better in the state of Utah for now going on two years with its major initiative, which has been delivered now in many different ways.

I think there's four things that I found that are really standing up as important things to discredit in front of managers or CEOs or agency leaders. The first is in order to be a good person, you need to disagree less. And that couldn't be further from the truth. People will tell you that when you.

When there's a lack of conflict, it's a sign of progress and lack of progress. Lack of disagreement is the exact opposite. It creates stagnation and stifles the dynamism that we've hired our employees to create. Right? So you don't have to give up your own beliefs or disagree, but you do need to know how to show empathy in an uncomfortable situation.

Can you talk about hurt feelings? Without hurting feelings and that's a Johnny Taylor quote that I've been using as we've kind of blended civility and disagree better across the way so don't don't equate disagreement with unkindness and I think, you know, the Utah way is very conflict adverse. That's what we teach and so understanding that you can engage in conflict and reducing conflict is not an outcome we're looking for here. Working through healthy conflict is the right thing.  

Mo:

Because we need to have the conversations because if we don't have the conversations. What happens?  

John:  

I think you're right, Mo. And that leads to the second myth. You can opt out of disagreements. Ignoring the conflict grows the conflict, right? And conflict is, uh, conflict is frequent when candor is safe. When you are allowed the permission to participate, and when you as a leader model it, you typically get better outcomes. Opting out. Or actually hiding conflict. Um, my executive coach recently told me your team in 2025 needs to see how you deal with conflict. How, what is your relationship with conflict?

Because sometimes we take conflict and we go hide and we solve conflict in a dark room. Now there's a time and place. I'm not suggesting that you have your staff meeting. Have the aggressive conflicting conversation, but I am suggesting that people need to know that conflict exists and by choosing to opt out, you lose the game.

You're not even playing the game, in fact, so you have to participate in the disagreement.  

Mo:

I love that by choosing to opt out. You're not even playing the game and you're losing the game.  

John:  

You don't even participate. The third would be, um, I think this has become relevant, um, and somewhat rudimentary in conversation. I think a lot of people assume that disagreement has been minimized in virtual environments. And, and of course that can't be further from the truth. In fact, you have to work harder to illuminate what conflict is. I often say that working hybrid, working remotely. You minimize the surface area or the touch point, right?

And that's what a lot of us when we hang on in office work or togetherness work, you're you're actually trying to increase surface area for innovation. So the converse is if you're working remotely, you're reducing the surface area for conversation and. Typically, conversation has to come with some form of disagreement or conflict.

Um, so a lot of people will hide behind remote work or hybrid work as a reason to discount the amount of disagreement in their organization when actually you need to have a standard process or an organized, um, organized thought on how to solve conflict in the hybrid work.  

Mo:

Yeah. And what's the fourth myth?

John:  

I think the fourth for me that I've seen that I speak about the most is that disagreeing better is an inherent trait or you either have it or you don't. When in actuality, conflict management, conflict resolution, we know is a skill set that you can develop, right? These are not skills that you are born with or born without.

Sure. Um, someone more gregarious or more direct or more empathetic, right? We all have our leaning strengths, but every one of us can create a more natural, if not secondhand, reaction to conflict if we practice it. So you've got to practice conflict. So all that sounds Incredibly on point to me.  

Mo:  

Here's my question. To what extent have you seen the conflict averse people that we know, uh, and love actually stepping up and, and going into these difficult conversations versus sticking to their old tried and true habits of sweeping it under the rug?  

John:  

Yeah, that's a great question. And if I might. Um, self-disclose. I, every assessment I ever take, I come across conflict adverse. I, which, which is an interesting spot to be in as, as a chief HR officer who believes I can only influence my organization without authority. If your HR person has authority, your organization is probably set up wrong. You, you are the key influencer of your organization, so you provide recommendations.

And a lot of times those recommendations get thwarted or analyzed or over scrutinized. Um, For me, as a conflict averse person, what I've been practicing, and this is why my coach gave me this feedback, was when I get offended, and I typically present my whole self in a recommendation, so it's really easy for me to get offended when I make a recommendation.

Oh, here's how we should analyze our time off policy, and here's what it's costing the taxpayers. And then I get the feedback. I have to go back and I did this just Monday of this week. Um, I set up my feelings journal, uh, uh, and it's a working document that my senior vice president or deputy have access to. And we analyze my comments and then we say, is this a feeling or is this a right? Or is this a business outcome we're looking to drive? And we kind of tear me apart, but we have that trusted relationship to do so. So, um, once I understand the lay of the land. My reaction or what I heard in that conversation and it takes a few days.

You can tell I've been working on this since Monday. I think I didn't craft my own response, right? And then I typically have to find the courage to go have the conversation because nobody wants to get that. Hey, here's how I felt email. I need to continue to engage. I need the medium to meet the mode, right? So I going. reengage with that leader. Um, and it's tough because it shows sometimes weakness. It also shows a vulnerability. Um, I am definitely conflict diverse and I've definitely had to really work hard to pivot as to what this looks like.  

Mo:  

It's interesting you use the word vulnerability because to me. Vulnerability can mean a lot of things, some of which I think are good, some of which may not be so good, but it takes vulnerability to step out of your comfort zone and have a conflict or disagreement conversation that you otherwise may not want to have.  

John:  

Well, well, thanks, Mo. It certainly isn't easy. And like I said, that's why I'm grateful for the tools and even some of the thoughts that my team's put together to help. Other practical leaders, CEOs, CHROs, and your audience, maybe get a little stronger in this way, in this path, for sure.  

Mo:

Love it. So, uh, something else you talk about is called the perception gap. Can you please tell us what that is?  

John:  

Uh, the perception gap is really interesting. Um, it actually is identified as what you think the other person knows. So, let's talk about political party because it's really easy right now. Democrats and Republicans, we all have, we all know there's, Some vitriol in that space, regardless of what side you typically sit on. Remember, remember when there used to be moderates, right? Remember that day, uh, um, right. The political polarization is created that typically the perception gap is this group.

Thanks. They know what that group is thinking just based on either some stereotypes, some stigmas, right? Or some conversations or whatever was put into the zeitgeist. Um, with the last post with the last comment or the last question. So it's it's getting to the point where they. Think they know what the other person thinks without even asking them typically and what Stanford studies, the depolarization and social change lab has shared with me is that they're typically about 30 percent off, meaning 30 percent inaccuracy just to engage in the conversation.

It also leads to typically that person who has the perception gap choosing to do something is disadvantageous to the conversation before the other person will just so they can quote unquote get ahead in that conversation. So the perception gap is extremely dangerous. It's something you need to be very aware of and there's guides, toolkits, and systems that you can use to try to tear that perception gap down, for sure.  

Mo:  

What's one simple tip that you might, if there is a simple tip that you might suggest for, for getting over this perception gap?  

John:  

It's, it's definitely figuring out how to align to the problem and not the person. So often I find when you step back and ask some Really simple questions, such as do we agree that our mission is important? Are we aligned on the goal? Being the right goal is our chosen path. Because at some point in the business world, you have to make a project plan. Does our path make sense? Are we still in the right path?

And then you get some very interesting ones. Um, obstacle. Can we point at the obstacle? Do we know that? Do we have the same obstacle? And that's been my most favorite question. Ask is that's usually when it becomes personal. If you're pointing at the problems. No, no, I think you're the problem. No, no, no.

What's the problem to us getting solved? That typically seems to most be the most pivotal question. Um, and then priority. Are we paying attention to to how big of a priority this is? Because a lot of times You can get frustrated or you can have conflict not understanding how important this is to the other stakeholder.

Uh, and if you don't put solid deadlines or expected turnaround times on things, it can get really tricky really quick.  

Mo:  

So some of that speaks to improving manager employee relationships. Can you expound upon that bit for a second?  

John:  

Yeah, I, look, we, we know that the most, most important component of anyone's Cultural aspect or cultural view of their work sits with their relationship with their manager, right? So if a manager doesn't set those clear expectations, a. k. a. be a people manager, right? Then you know that you're probably going to engage in some conflict. So we try to, once again, align to what. We try to align our managers to what the issues are when they come to any of my team of 140 and say, I'm having some conflict.

They typically don't use that word in this space with my directive port. We tried to ask them, right? Is this what task are you looking to resolve? And how do you get ahead of it? Or is this a who problem? Are you actually in a space where you disdain them based on the views of something that they have?

That's not relevant to the work, right? So you separate out. The what and the who, and then, like I said earlier, oftentimes you find that there's some form of perception gap or contempt in the space, and we have crucial conversations. I think I mentioned earlier. We have the alignment pyramid on. We have other little scenarios to make sure that our managers are setting up for success to engage in a healthy or step into conflict versus stepping around it for sure.

Mo:  

And the alignment pyramid is, are we aligned on the mission and the goals? Is that right?  

John:  

Yeah, I kind of walked us through that for sure. Yes, you did.  

Mo:  

Thank you. Thank you. So what about the the need to be liked? How does that impact all of this?  

John:  

Managers become managers, uh, to become. Ultimately become leaders of people and leading people has to include, and there's a lot of research in this space, some form of respect, which we often pervert into like ability.

There's either the authoritative, like ability, or there's the friend, like ability and generations of employees are learning that like ability is becoming seemingly more important from you. Managers. I'm a first-time parent. I've got a two year old six week old. You want to talk about likability? Try to get a two year old to eat a healthy dinner, right?

But I do engage in that relationship differently than I do with my team of 140, right? You can engage in the disagreement with respect that's valued in that space, and you don't have to let go of quote unquote friendships, or you don't have to lose your seat at the lunch table with them. It can be challenging for executives.

We know there's a loneliness epidemic of executives, right? Who do you engage with? Who do you event with? How do you how do you have a rough day when you can't talk to your downline? Right? Your title often comes with preconceived notions of authority and formality have to let go of of being liked in all of your conversations in order to drive stronger business outcomes.

MO:  

Beautiful. Yeah. Is that easy to do?  

John:  

Absolutely not. Absolutely, absolutely not. As someone who gets the dopamine hit off of every like on Instagram, man, that's really challenging, isn't it?  

Mo:

It's challenging. John, what a great conversation. So what's one piece of advice that has shaped your work or personal life the most?

John:  

Thanks, Mo. I've heard you ask that question to your audience or to, uh, to your participants before. Um, I think. The one that step that that I think about the most happened early in my career when I as an HR professional was convinced I was going to change the world with this recommendation or this policy or this project or this initiative and my senior leader didn't warm up to it as much as I thought and in a moment of kind of despair, I'll use that word.

I was in a tough spot. One of my HR Um, guys at the time said, you know, every organization gets the HR they deserve. And I've, I've always thought that would be really, really important to remember because while I am an HR champion, I also am a business outcome leader who tries to drive great things for the 22, 000 employees that I'm lucky enough to serve right now, but they will only get the HR that they deserve.

And that can come across as a negative connotation. When your CEO or your governor gives you the long leash to stand up performance management or introduce pay for performance, you know that they're getting the HR that they deserve. And I've found that to be true in the majority of the roles I've had.

Mo:  

Thank you, John. And that's where we'll end it for this episode of People and Strategy. A huge thanks to John Barrand, CHRO of the Utah government. You can follow the People and Strategy podcast wherever you get your podcasts. Also, podcast reviews have a real impact on podcast visibility. So if you enjoyed today's episode, leave a review to help others find the show. Finally, you could find all our episodes on our website at SHRM.org/podcasts. Thank you for listening and have a great day.