What do you do if your social impact team has conflicting viewpoints?

Here is my path: 1. **Embrace Diversity**: Acknowledge that diversity within a team is crucial. Each team member brings unique experiences and perspectives. 2. **Open Dialogue**: Encourage open communication where all voices are heard and respected. 3. **Richer Understanding**: Diverse viewpoints lead to a deeper understanding of social issues. 4. **Broader Range of Ideas**: Embracing diversity allows for a wider variety of ideas, which is essential for effective social impact strategies. Remember, fostering an inclusive environment benefit everyone and strengthens collective efforts toward positive change.

One of the things I love about this is that many perspectives can actually drive change. In the case of social impact you soul us be taking an intersectional approach means your actively embracing diverse voices

Recognising and embracing diversity is the first step in addressing conflicting viewpoints in a team. Allowing group members to share their opinions and experiences makes them feel included and appreciated. As a leader, avoid the know-it-all notion and allow your team members to participate equally, listening to their rich and diverse viewpoints.

Deep listening to divergent points of view is a competency in facilitating dialogue and navigating conflict. Can I listen to what is not being said? Can I listen out of curiosity? Can I listen without judgments/labels.? Can I listen without being in a rush to conclude?

This is one of the most important and critical skills for any leader. It indicates that you prioritize the other person's views, and respect them enough to listen intentionally to them. This makes team members feel heard, appreciated and recognized, from a genuine point of reference, without being patronizing.

Active listening is an important part of assertive communication. Not only hearing but embracing attention and assuring that you are really understanding their point.

I will make sure all team members have the opportunity to present their point of view to the others, and that powerful questions and made to fully understand each point of view and at the end build the team’s collective vision on what to do next, trying to create a solution based of the different perspectives

Yes, I've noticed then when you actively listen and give space for awkward silence you allow people to process their thoughts and answer or share their thoughts without pressure and hopefully a closer truth to what they actually wanted to share

It's inevitable that your team will have differences of opinion, but avoiding discussion solves nothing. The best way to facilitate dialogue is to bring in a neutral external party who can set group agreements, acknowledge all views, name the tensions, and worth with the team on a collective and individual basis to identify paths forward. In lieu of budget for this, inviting a board member or someone from another part of your organization to help facilitate makes a big difference. The key is that all parties feel safe to share their views and needs, that everyone comes to the conversation with the intention of understanding one another, and keep the bigger picture in mind.

I've had great leaders and mentors and always set the tone that the change comes from polite constructive discomfort, have the type of conversation you really want to, the one you plan to have with people who don't matter

I am strong believer in getting to understand people's perspectives, based on their lived experiences, culture or norms, because these are the foundational pillars that influence thinking, outlook, values, perspectives. It's from this understanding, through dialogue, that one is able to gain more insights and perspectives, regarding the team member, thereby assisting the team lead to have a robust or 360 degrees view on any issue. It prevents being biased, judgmental or superior in knowledge, but an opportunity to expand your scope and perspectives on things. This will be my 1st step, then align these new knowledge and understanding with the overall vision and objectives, performing the role of a bridge-builder to achieve a common goal.

It's nice to have group consensus but I don't feel it's always nesscary. It really depends on the situation. In cases of non profits its normally through votes and it doesn't always reflect the majority of the group, just those whose votes count

In community we use mediation all the time and when facilities properly it's a beautiful experience. Especially if the context is better understanding and not to prove right or wrong.

When conflicting viewpoints arise within a social impact team, it's crucial to foster open communication and respectful dialogue. Encourage team members to voice their perspectives and concerns, then work together to find common ground or compromise. Establishing clear goals and priorities can also help guide discussions towards constructive solutions.

If you ask me, I'd be concerned if my team *always* agreed and never challenged each other. I think that's a worse problem to have. There are good and bad ways of dealing with disagreements, of course, so work on that - but don't see disagreement as a sign of dysfunction. It's actually the opposite.

Expect that your team won't agree. They are a team, not a single individual. Use the above tools of listening and dialogue. They should be standard practice. Don't force the situation but come to a resolution that everyone will agree to 'test'. If it turns out to be the right way forward, congratulate yourselves. If it doesn't, try again and make this iterative process, your business process.