We might have a different view from one of our business colleagues on the right way to approach a people-related topic. Or we might be pulled in as a trusted mediator, trying to bridge a difference of opinion between others who are at odds.
These different points of view can be a good thing if channeled effectively. Research tells us that people tend to reach better insight if they talk things through with someone who sees things differently to them.
But it can be tricky to get people to listen to a view that challenges their own. This is because of a few features of the human brain. Understanding these quirks is critical to learning how to address disagreements well.
First of all, the brain can only process a limited amount of information. Everyone’s missing something, all the time. And yet, we all think we see the world completely objectively (this is known as naïve realism).
So when someone disagrees with us, we tend to assume they’re misinformed. Even though they may be seeing something we blanked. Second, our attention gets drawn towards whatever resonates with our current mood (this is mood-congruent perception).
The Common Ground technique
In a disagreement people often feel tense, so areas of difference can dominate people’s focus even when there’s plenty they agree on. Finally, when people feel they’re not being listened to, it can trigger a defensive stress response that makes it harder to think flexibly.
But that science also gives us clues about what we can do to lead a better debate: acknowledge that each may see something the other missed; illuminate areas of agreement so they don’t get overshadowed; and make sure both points of view get a proper hearing.
That’s the thinking behind what I call the Common Ground technique. You can use it to guide your own conversation with someone. But you can also use it to facilitate a debate by walking your colleagues through these five steps.
When someone disagrees with us, we tend to assume they’re misinformed. Even though they may be seeing something we blanked
Step One: Describe their point of view as POSITIVELY as possible
If you’re disagreeing with a colleague, start by describing their side of the argument as generously as you can, so they feel you really understand where they’re coming from:
- “I understand that you think we should do [thing]… because of [reasons]…”
When mediating a disagreement between two colleagues, summarise each side’s point of view yourself as evenly as possible.
If that’s hard to do because they haven’t yet laid out their perspectives clearly, start with a Step Zero where each side describes their own point of view. Then play back what you’re hearing, as positively as you can.
Step Two: List all the areas of AGREEMENT
Together, make a list of what everyone agrees on. This is your common ground. There’s often more of it than first seems apparent once you step back and consider your shared goals, and perhaps shared knowledge, history and values.
- “Where does everyone agree? I think everyone wants A. We all believe that B. We all care about C. We all know that D.”
Step Three: Isolate and understand the true DISAGREEMENT
Once you’re standing on that common ground, explore the disagreement and probe to understand what has shaped the differing points of view.
- “The only place we/you seem to disagree is….”
- “Why do we/you each feel or think differently about this specific issue?”
Often, people’s views have been shaped by constraints or history that isn’t visible to the other side. For example, a colleague who’s had a bad experience with a recent hire is going to have a different point of view on hiring than a colleague who’s only ever had successes.
Ask people to share those backstories. Understanding why a colleague seems so resistant to an idea helps everyone see that they’re not arguing just to be a pain.
Often, people’s views have been shaped by constraints or history that isn’t visible to the other side
Step Four: Explore how BOTH sides could be correct
Then, ask this unusual-sounding question:
- “Is there a way that both perspectives could somehow be correct?”
It’s often the case that the two sides are each partially right. But perhaps in different situations or with different groups of people.
Maybe something that works well in one region doesn’t work in another area where people have different needs.
Step Five: Decide what you can DO NOW, based on your common ground
At this point, people tend to feel better understood. This makes everyone less defensive and better able to think clearly about what to do next. So, now you ask:
- “What can we do based on where we agree?”
For example, you might see it’s possible to get moving on the majority of a project while one specific issue is resolved. It might be possible to trial two different approaches, and use the resulting data to guide the final choice.
In most cases, you don’t need 100% agreement to take some steps forward. People often find it’s easier to amicably “agree to disagree” on issues that don’t require total alignment, once they feel their views are understood.
And research shows that people are more likely to be able to get behind something they don’t initially agree with once they feel their perspective has been given a fair hearing. Which the Common Ground technique helps you do very skilfully.
In my experience, doing any one of these five steps can increase your chances of finding a collaborative way forward, rather than getting stuck in a dispute that drags on.
But if you walk through all five steps, you set a powerful example for your colleagues. You show that people’s views can be expressed and listened to with respect, and that pooling your wisdom gets you to a stronger, smarter outcome.
Caroline Webb’s new book Leadership Intelligence includes more on the Common Ground technique and several other similar tools. It is available from 10 September from Pan Macmillan.
If you enjoyed this Five Steps, why not read another?: Five steps: HR’s guide to rethinking productivity in the age of AI
The post Five steps: Perfect the science of disagreeing well appeared first on HRZone.
