I think this article confuses an absence of "heated arguments" with a lack of constructive, critical discussions. I've found that in mature teams with high trust, people don't have heated arguments precisely because they are not afraid that their voices will be ignored. There is no need to become heated because you trust that the other people on the team will hear you out and consider your viewpoint. >code that nobod…
> this article confuses an absence of "heated arguments" with a lack of constructive, critical discussions. Doesn't the article refute exactly this point of view? In " The hidden cost of “nice” teams " section: " Those teams weren’t actually harmonious—they were conflict-avoidant. The disagreements still existed; they just went underground. "
In my experience, this is not true because, in high-trust teams, there is "harmonious conflict." People offer criticism without getting heated.
Getting heated often results from a strong opinion combined with a lack of faith that other people are genuinely considering your opinion. People who get heated feel they have to be forceful to convince others to listen. Knowing your opinion will be hard and carefully considered, you don't need to get heated.