When someone has made an honest mistake, exposing that is not a source of conflict. The conflict only arises when the "mistake" wasn't honest, but rather the person was being dishonest about their goals from the start.
Again, that's an ideal, and I promote that ideal and do my best to practice it. But if there is no conflict, there is certainly dishonesty. A social system that pretends there is none is a lie, and everyone knows it (but apparently can't say so). A social system that pretends there is no conflict is like a software development system that pretends there are no bugs.
> if there is no conflict, there is certainly dishonesty
Do you consider honest disagreement (whether about facts or about priorities) to be "conflict"? That is something that always happens, but secret nonalignment doesn't always have to happen.
I mean anger, people feeling threatened/unsafe, etc. It doesn't always happen, it can be reduced, but you're kidding yourself if it isn't happening. Again, like getting zero bug reports for your software - something is wrong.
Will it happen? Sure. Can you reduce it to the level where it doesn't significantly deter people from being honest about issues? IME yes, though perhaps not in every kind of organisation.
