Why some conflict is essential for innovation
Disagreement, when handled properly, can result in stronger decisions, better adoption, and fewer hidden problems – particularly as AI reshapes the workplace
Conflict is usually seen as something IT leaders should steer clear of. But in fact, the opposite is true – and avoiding confrontation can lead to major headaches down the line.
That’s according to service management consultant, Alex Cosma, who argues that productive disagreement is one of the most overlooked drivers of better technology decisions, especially as organizations rush to adopt AI.
“Conflict has a really bad reputation,” Cosma told attendees at the MSP Show 2026, which was held in London last week.
“But I wanted to show not the negative side of conflict, but the positive side, and how that can help you drive innovation in service management.”
The issue is that many teams confuse harmony with success, she said. But meetings where nobody pushes back can leave serious flaws undiscovered until much later.
“Think about that meeting where everybody sits quietly,” she said. “We don’t have anybody weighing in. We don’t have anybody saying, ‘Why are we doing things this way?’”
Cosma described this as “artificial harmony” – situations where teams publicly agree with a plan but privately remain unconvinced. In service management, for example, this can lead to processes people ignore, portals users dislike but never criticise, or projects marked green despite growing operational problems.
AI still needs human disagreement
For channel partners, that challenge is becoming more relevant as AI enters everyday operations. Cosma said organisations risk relying too heavily on AI-generated answers before people have properly explored the problem itself.
“AI shines in convergence. It makes us faster and more consistent in routine decisions. But humans shine through divergence,” she said.
In other words, AI is effective at refining and operationalising ideas. Humans, meanwhile, are still better at questioning assumptions, exploring alternatives, and debating possible approaches.
“First, we need to start with divergence, where we can have a healthy debate and throw ideas on the table. Then we can use AI to get us to the best possible outcome,” said Cosma.
Challenge the idea, not the person
A theme throughout the session was the importance of separating disagreement from personal conflict. Challenging ideas is healthy, but attacking people is where organisations run into trouble.
“We want to challenge each other. However, we don’t want to challenge the person. Never challenge the individual – challenge the idea,” she explained.
Cosma shared an example from her own experience where architects, process managers, and service leaders spent an entire day arguing through a difficult service management problem. The discussions became tense, but the eventual outcome exceeded what any individual participant had originally proposed.
“We allowed ourselves to challenge each other because we trusted each other,” she said.
Why leaders should embrace disagreement
The bigger danger, Cosma warned, is groupthink. Teams naturally want agreement and social harmony, but that instinct can create blind spots and prevent risks from surfacing early enough.
“If everyone agrees with me in a meeting, I get suspicious,” she said.
Instead, she encouraged leaders to actively invite disagreement and create psychologically safe environments where people feel comfortable questioning decisions.
“Disagreement here is not only allowed,” she said. “It’s expected.”
