Conflict Drives the Drama

Hollywood taught me about organisations.

Suggests Parker and Stone:

“We see movies where this happens, and then this happens, and then this happens. That's when we sit there and think ‘Why are we watching this?’

That's not a movie, that's not a story. It’s the ‘but’s, ‘because’s and ‘therefore’s that give causation between events. That's what makes a story.”

Continues Noah:

“Without the conflict, you don't have a movie. Everything in a movie is a vehicle for resolving a conflict.

In Die Hard, both John and Holly want a fulfilling life, but have conflicting beliefs about how to get there.

John believes he has to get criminals off the street, and he can only do that in New York. Holly is a Nakatomi executive, and the only role available to her is in LA. But, in order to have fulfilling lives, both John and Holly need to be in the same city.

The invalid assumption is that John can't be a cop in LA, and the movie helps clarify that assumption. That’s the core conflict of Die Hard, and essentially what defines Die Hard as a romance: it’s John’s journey to get to a happy marriage with Holly.”

Something in my head clicked.

Organisations are like good movies. They don’t feature a collection of independent problems occurring in isolation, but a system of interconnected problems that stem from a core conflict.

A conflict we often see is that of either developing new features quickly, or keeping our systems stable. Usually we compromise and get neither speed nor stability, and instead many side-effects: Developers and Operations arguing, long service transition checklists, and a complexifying technical estate.

However, in organisations and in families, we’re usually working towards the same goal. John and Holly both wanted a fulfilling life, and Developers and Operations both want to satisfy customers.

That means conflicts are usually not due to different goals, but different ideas on how best to get there. If we’re both trying to get to the same place in the same version of reality, but we’re each favouring different routes to get there, then some of our assumptions about the routes must be invalid. By surfacing invalid assumption(s), we can narrow our options, and be in agreement on both the goal and the route to get there.

The takeaway? Resolving conflicts improves organisations, and doesn’t need to be a Die Hard endeavour. Find the invalid assumption. Example here.

Note: This article was inspired by Parker and Stone and Noah. Quotes adapted for brevity.