This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Even the most seasoned executives may have strongly opposing views about the wisest course of action for an organization, particularly given their diverse personal backgrounds or previous immersion in other corporate cultures. But such differences in approach don't necessarily lead to conflicts that are unproductive and damaging to an organization. To investigate such issues, the authors conducted a study of the organizational values (objectives that an individual or group believes are important in running a business, such as industry leadership, employee welfare, and profit maximization) of the top management teams in 31 companies. The authors investigated two specific types of team conflict: task and relationship. Task conflict is characterized by substantive, issue-related differences in opinion. This type of disagreement can be beneficial when it ensures that a greater number of possible solutions are explored. In contrast, relationship conflict--characterized by disagreements over personalized, individually oriented matters--is generally detrimental. It corrodes trust, hinders communication, slows the acceptance of ideas, and leads to isolation and politicization among group members. The study results showed that behavior is driven by perception rather than reality. Specifically, the greater the perceived difference in organizational values among members of a top management team and their CEO the greater the conflict. Interestingly, any actual dissimilarity was not a factor. Thus, the bottom line is that many top management teams are unnecessarily encountering difficulties because of members' faulty assumptions. To lessen this tendency, the authors advise companies to consider the following: establish an appropriate atmosphere for the team; because perceptions become reality, understand and manage them; investigate the gaps between perceptions and reality; and act decisively to correct gross misperceptions.

Among the tests of a leader, few are more challenging--and more painful--than recovering from a career catastrophe. Most fallen leaders, in fact, don't recover. Still, two decades of consulting experience, scholarly research, and their own personal experiences have convinced the authors that leaders can triumph over tragedy--if they do so deliberately. Great business leaders have much in common with the great heroes of universal myth, and they can learn to overcome profound setbacks by thinking in heroic terms. First, they must decide whether or not to fight back. Either way, they must recruit others into their battle. They must then take steps to recover their heroic status, in the process proving, both to others and to themselves, that they have the mettle necessary to recover their heroic mission. Bernie Marcus exemplifies this process. Devastated after Sandy Sigoloff fired him from Handy Dan, Marcus decided to forgo the distraction of litigation and instead make the marketplace his battleground. Drawing from his network of carefully nurtured relationships with both close and more distant acquaintances, Marcus was able to get funding for a new venture. He proved that he had the mettle, and recovered his heroic status, by building Home Depot, whose entrepreneurial spirit embodied his heroic mission. As Bank One's Jamie Dimon, J.Crew's Mickey Drexler, and even Jimmy Carter, Martha Stewart, and Michael Milken have shown, stunning comebacks are possible in all industries and walks of life. Whatever the cause of your predicament, it makes sense to get your story out. The alternative is likely to be long-lasting unemployment. If the facts of your dismissal cannot be made public because they are damning, then show authentic remorse. The public is often enormously forgiving when it sees genuine contrition and atonement.