eing disagreeable – and confrontation often has a negative connotation. Complex organisations have inherent tensions in them that need argument to resolve – the tension between sales and service; headquarters and frontline; management and workforce. These tensions are inescapable, so why do we train ourselves that addressing that tension is a bad thing? In the facilitation work that I do (which we cheekily call ‘play nice’), I’ve come to identify that most people avoid an argument to the point of repression and explosion. Most people don’t know how to disagree well because they’ve been trained it’s a bad thing. The combined result is unhappy people, poor relationships, passive aggressive or combative behaviours, and issues so far gone that they are a huge challenge to unravel and resolve.   Don’t avoid your next argument. A good workplace argument improves your health, corporate performance, team culture and overall happiness. Health: Arguments allow you to express and release frustration and stops tension building up. Psychotherapist Antoinette Giacobbe says: “The worst part about anger is not expressing it. The more you repress it, the more it can damage your health.” Performance: A good argument sits behind almost all innovation – without arguments we could not challenge the status quo. Arguments also prevent errors happening and stop work challenges from getting worse. It’s also an opportunity to show you care – we rarely argue when we don’t care, and care breeds attention – with better results. Culture: Diverse teams flourish when differences are celebrated rather than repressed, so a good work argument both promotes inclusion and evidences psychological safety. An argument rebalances relationships, promotes trust and builds mutual respect. Happiness: A Chinese/US study demonstrated that when employees expressed their frustration in a regular and structured way, it increased their happiness in the workplace. So how can you have a ‘good’ argument and avoid a ‘bad’ one? Parker, Medina, and Schill’s Diversity’s new frontier: Diversity of thought article points out that “substantive disagreements do not need to become personal: ideas either have merit and posits of connection or they do not.”  And that’s the basis of the difference between a good argument – one that’s about ideas, and a bad argument – one which becomes personal.  Before you go into an argument, adjust these three mindsets: Disagreeing does not mean disliking. You don’t have to agree with someone to like them – and they don’t have to agree with you to like you. Letting go of this fear is the first step to being able to have a good argument that will actually build your like for each other further. Disagreeing does not mean taking sides. Take the view that you’re both on the same side – the side of reaching the best outcome. Do not argue to win: argue to solve. It’s easy for our competitive nature to take over mid-argument and for us to argue to win. Suddenly can’t remember what you’re even arguing about? It’s because you fell into the argue-to-win trap. To avoid this, be clear from the outset what your argument is trying to solve. Then apply these three techniques during your conversation: Separate the issue from the person. When you focus on an objective issue – like a process, system or artefact you’ll avoid triggering the personal aspects that create ‘bad’ arguments. A good argument centres on a problem, not a person.Do not belittle the other argument. Ever.Establish their needs as well as your own before you embark on the argument. Knowing that you’re aiming for a win-win before things heat up will keep you on the same page. Having an argument is important, and sometimes inevitable, so conduct your arguments with structure and discipline to ensure they become a useful tool to nipping issues in the bud, creating a better team environment and getting to smarter outcomes.