Learn to Embrace Conflict

If you want to make progress in your career, you need to stop avoiding hard conversations.

I often get asked why there are so many more South Asian CEOs than East Asian CEOs in Corporate America. Among the Fortune 500, the CEOs of Alphabet/Google (Sundar Pichai), Microsoft, (Satya Nadella), Adobe (Shantanu Narayen), Chanel (Leena Nair), IBM (Arvind Krishna), Micron (Sanjay Mehrotra), Palo Alto Networks (Nikesh Arora) and former CEOs of Mastercard (Ajay Banga) and Pepsi (Indra Nooyi) were all born in India and were appointed the CEO position. There are far fewer East Asian CEOs in the Fortune 500, and most of them are the founders of their companies like Jensen Huang (Nvidia), Tony Xu (DoorDash), Lisa Su (AMD) and Hock Tan (Broadcom). Three of these are in the semiconductor industry and two of them founded their companies. This is just a list of the Fortune 500 CEOs, but the data shows that South Asians not only outperformed East Asians at this level, but also over-indexed compared to white CEOs.

Whereas extensive research has examined the “glass ceiling” faced by women, little research has examined the “bamboo ceiling,” whereby Asians appear disproportionately underrepresented in leadership positions in the United States. To investigate the mechanisms and scope of this problem, we compared the two largest Asian subgroups: East Asians and South Asians. Across nine studies (n = 11,030), East Asians were less likely than South Asians and whites to attain leadership positions, whereas South Asians outperformed whites. The leadership attainment gap between East Asians and South Asians was consistently explained by cultural differences in assertiveness, but not by prejudice or motivation.

- Why East Asians but not South Asians are underrepresented in leadership positions in the United States, MIT Sloan Professor Jackson Lu, University of Michigan Professor Richard E. Nisbett, and Columbia Business School Professor Michael W. Morris

In his research, MIT Sloan Professor Jackson Lu asserts that East Asian cultures emphasize humility and conformity over assertiveness. In American leadership culture, this lack of assertiveness can be misinterpreted as lacking confidence and motivation. Whereas South Asian cultures often encourage assertiveness and debate in interpersonal communication. Assertiveness was measured in the study with self-ratings and other-ratings, like “I speak up and share my views when it is appropriate” and “I am willing to engage in constructive interpersonal confrontations.”

It’s not a secret that most East Asians are known to be conflict avoidant. Rather than confronting someone and having a conversation to air out their dispute, they are more likely to bottle up their frustration and suppress their feelings, hoping they dissipate over time. In Asia, that may work because everyone is under the same social contract to maintain social harmony, but it is ineffective in other cultures. East Asian cultures emphasize the need to fit in with others and liken conflict with turmoil. This is especially true when there is an authority or senior figure involved. The subordinate or younger party, always defers to the more senior party, even if they are wrong. People care more about “face” than they do about resolution and ensuring the best outcome for all parties involved.

Much of East Asian culture is rooted in the teachings of Confucius. Confucian conflict resolution emphasizes a holistic approach that cultivates virtues, values relationships, prioritizes harmony, and seeks peaceful solutions through dialogue, empathy, and ethical conduct. This leads to a culture that is less confrontational or argumentative, in order to maintain social harmony and peace. By avoiding confrontation and seeking common ground, you encourage patience and forbearance while achieving peaceful resolutions and maintaining amicable relationships. The problem with this is that it can often lead to bitterness and passive aggressiveness. I’ve written about the concept of “eating bitterness” or 吃苦 in a previous essay. It’s the idea that you endure the pain for the greater good. The problem is that if you aren’t under the same social contract as the other parties involved, this will only lead to being taken advantage of or being seen as weak and submissive.

Society also places unfair standards on the behavior on women. Women tend to pursue conflict avoidance strategies in order to avoid being perceived as too aggressive or angry. A woman who is “too” assertive or argumentative is often labeled as difficult (or worse). Whereas a man who behaves the same way is seen as a strong and forceful leader. As a result, women are often placed in the peacemaker role during conflict resolution because they are better able to facilitate acceptable outcomes for disputing parties. Being an East Asian American woman is doubly burdensome, as you are weighed down with both cultural and societal gender norms.

In order to gain respect and earn power, you have to be willing to embrace conflict. Those who avoid difficult conversations or resolving disputes, cannot be trusted to handle challenging situations. No one believes in a captain who isn’t resilient and unable to effectively navigate stormy weather. It is critical for a leader to be willing to confront people and resolve conflicts that impact the people that work with you and for you.

The Direct Approach of Indians

A 2016 study by Priya Gupta and her colleagues challenges that narrative. After surveying 503 Indian professionals across industries, from tech and healthcare to startups and consulting, they found that Indians overwhelmingly lean into conflict rather than shy away from it.

The research broke conflict resolution into five categories: three that are approach-based (confrontation, compromise, and negotiation), and two that are avoidant (withdrawal and resignation). What stood out? Indians of all ages and genders preferred the approach-based styles, especially negotiation, followed by confrontation. That means when conflict arises in the workplace, most Indians don’t flinch. They’re not only willing to engage, they actively seek resolution through dialogue and directness. Baby boomers in particular preferred confrontation, while younger Gen Y workers leaned slightly more toward withdrawal, but even then, negotiation still topped the list across the board. All of the Indian CEOs mentioned above are baby boomers.

This runs counter to a common misconception that collectivist cultures always avoid conflict. In the Indian context, collectivism seems to show up more in the form of collaborative problem-solving and consensus-building, not conflict avoidance. Indians aren’t passive, they’re pragmatic. They value resolution over repression. Researchers pointed out that these conflict resolution styles are very similar to those of Americans and other Westerners. This may or may not be the result of British colonial influence (this coupled with English fluency, the diversity of religions and caste system in India leading to more frequent conflicts, could be an entirely separate essay).

What this all underscores is something I talk about a lot: people are more complex than cultural caricatures. You can’t just map behaviors onto someone because of where they’re from. Understanding generational differences, personality, and professional context matters just as much, if not more, than making broad cultural assumptions.

The Costs of Conflict Avoidance

There are very real reputational and monetary costs to avoiding conflict. Your career will ultimately be capped, because a person who cannot confront others and resolve conflict is unlikely to be promoted. When you manage others, you have to be willing to provide negative feedback and criticism. If you are too afraid to deliver a harsh message because you’re afraid of making someone feel bad or making yourself feel uncomfortable, then you are simply not leadership material. You need to be able to demonstrate that you can have tough conversations and be direct. Avoiding conflict:

• Undermines your ability to lead because you are unwilling to confront the issues, which makes you appear weak, apathetic or oblivious

• Demoralizes your best performers because you accept mediocrity, which decreases productivity and creativity

• Creates a culture of doubt and cynicism by allowing things to slip

• Promotes more conflict avoidance by others

• Causes increased stress and strained relationships which negatively impacts mental and physical health

• Increases turnover, because people want to escape an unhealthy environment

Here are a few practical steps and changes in mindset to better embrace conflict:

• Stop Taking Things Personally

• Be Comfortable with Discomfort

• Don’t Beat Around the Bush

• Lead by Example

• Reframe Conflict as an Opportunity

Stop Taking Things Personally

When you have a conflict with someone, and you bring it directly to them to find a resolution, one might easily assume there must be a winner and a loser. That mentality makes people afraid to attempt resolving a conflict, because they might lose face. When in reality, if you’ve resolved a conflict successfully, both parties win. It might mean admitting you’re wrong, if you are in fact wrong, or it might mean the other party acknowledges their mistake. It could be both parties miscommunicated or misunderstood, but it will never get resolved without a direct conversation. If you take things too personally, you will be overly tied to your pride and ego, which will make you more unwilling to have that conversation in the first place.

Be Comfortable with Discomfort

People who don’t like feeling uncomfortable or being in awkward situations, tend to run away from them. The mere thought of being in a position of tension makes their skin crawl, and nothing could be worse for them. In order to manage and resolve conflict, you have to be comfortable with discomfort. You need to learn to deal with the anxiety and distress caused by conflict or tension. Think of it as making an investment in a better situation on the other side. The passive aggression only leads to suppressed and growing bitterness that is just as uncomfortable, if not more damaging, than the momentary discomfort of directly confronting a person or situation. In other words, the short term pain of pulling the Band-Aid off quickly is much better than slowly peeling it off.

Don’t Beat Around the Bush

Oftentimes, even when you approach a conflict, you can still manage to painfully drag out the resolution. Just because you’ve agreed to meet with the person you have an issue with, doesn’t mean you are committed to resolving things. You have to be willing to be direct and to the point. Beating around the bush only shows you don’t believe that what you need to say is valid or worthy. Stuttering or dancing around the topic at hand conveys uncertainty and undermines your position. You must be intentional and explicit in what you say, if you want the other party to fully grasp where you are coming from. That is the first step to negotiating a resolution: firmly and confidently articulating your position. This often takes preparation and practice in order to clearly communicate your points.

Lead by Example

People want to follow a leader who they can trust to do the right thing and take care of them. They want a leader who can proactively steer through challenging situations. If there is a team member that is being difficult or not carrying their weight, they want a leader deal with that person firmly. Someone who passive aggressively allows that person to poison the team with mediocrity will not be respected as a good leader. A strong leader leads by example and shows how to handle tough decisions and disputes. A healthy environment is created when the team knows how to manage and resolve internal conflicts. Only by demonstrating that they can handle these types of scenarios time and time again, will they be promoted to the most senior levels of leadership.

Reframe Conflict as an Opportunity

One way to help with a fear of conflict is if we reframe conflict from being net negative to being net positive. People associate conflict with fighting or arguing, and ultimately resulting in someone losing. What if you position conflict as a learning opportunity for all parties involved? A chance for each party to openly share their frustrations and grievances with one another as an exercise to reset through direct communication. Resolving conflict allows you to bring everyone to the same table and get everyone back on the same page. Most conflicts arise out of misunderstanding or miscommunication in the first place. Only by having a conversation, are you able to clarify your positions. That might mean that you still disagree with the other person’s position after clarifying, but you also have the opportunity to persuade them or be persuaded to find compromise. You can’t do that if you never have that conversation.

When two different people look at the exact same dilapidated house, they might see two very different things. One might see a fixer upper opportunity to renovate and relishes the challenge. They imagine investing time and money in it to make it a dream home or a property they can flip and turn a profit on. The other might see an endless money pit of headaches and problems that they want nothing to do with. This is how some people can approach conflicts. Some dread conflict and want to run in the other direction at the thought of it. They think about how uncomfortable and awkward things can get. Others see it as an opportunity for personal and professional growth. They see it as a challenge that they want to overcome. Only one mentality will result in an upward career trajectory. When you weigh the downsides of conflict avoidance and the upside of managing conflicts effectively, it makes temporary pain worth the long-term gain.