What if we are both right... a little?

As a consultant, one of the most productive things I get the chance to be a part of is a process sometimes known as a discovery.  The term can mean many things to different people, but for now I will describe it primarily as an exercise in alignment.  The process can be uncomfortable, tedious, and may often challenge the value of the work in question.

Most discoveries begin with an initial activity to highlight what all the stakeholders have in mind for a given project.  It usually doesn’t take long to see that even though all have a shared interest in the company’s success, there are striking divergent beliefs in what needs to be done in order to achieve success.  The debates can get heated, and given the constraints of time and budget, the likelihood of achieving everyone’s intended outcomes begins to feel increasingly out of reach.  

Once things feel the most hopeless, the real work begins. Time is taken to identify the things that all (or most) parties do agree on.  We then move to the areas of possible compromise. Usually, some basis of a shared understanding derives from the Why.  We ask questions about Who or Where the solution is intended to serve.  With an eye on the shared outcome, we do the work of shaping the How and When.  When successful, we get all parties to sign off on the initial plan.  The key word there is “initial.”  We work with our clients to make it clear that as we progress, we will learn new things together, and we will have regular checkpoints that will allow us to pivot and adjust based on any new information we learn along the way.

If you have read my other posts, I’m sure you have a good sense of what’s coming next.  I thought I did too, but this article has taken me in many different directions along the way.  The initial thought was to quickly offer a framework that would allow 2 people with opposing views to come together and have a civil discourse, that would grant some level of mutual perspective to each.  And although, there is tremendous merit in that conversation framework, I have learned the much more difficult task is getting people to even be open or interested in hearing perspectives they don’t agree with.

Instead of first focusing on the way we should talk to each other, writing this has led me to rethink how we talk to ourselves.  In the essay, “What is Man?” Mark Twain makes an interesting point that has been born out by scientific research.  In short, he asserts that there is no such thing as a perpetual seeker of truth.  Simply put, once a person finds something he/she thinks to be the truth, they spend every ounce of energy preserving and protecting that thing.  We nurture our truth, patch it, and defend it at all costs.  This shows up in both business and in our personal lives in many ways.

What if, before you engaged with someone you are likely to disagree with, you carefully walked through a discovery-type process with yourself.  Start with the thing you believe to be true.  Simply state to yourself what you believe.  Then do your best to answer the rest of the 5 W’s, Where, When, Why, and Who.  If the thing in question requires action, it’s good to also think through the How. This process alone will often highlight gaps in your own point-of-view.  We often believe/think things with a distant connection to the roots of our beliefs.  Take your time with this.  It might require research and lead you to deeper questions. My hope is that this journey will ultimately give you productive insights and inform what you do next.  

Assuming you have comprehensively done the previous step and now have clarity on your own position, then the fun begins.  Challenge yourself to imagine that you had to defend the opposite perspective.  Repeat the above process with the opposite premise and do your best to explore the 5 W’s and see if you can find at least one that you can relate to.  This could be uncomfortable, but no one has to know you are considering such things… It will be our secret.  For many of us, we have tied so much of our identity to what we know and believe, so the concept of being open to the counter of those foundations can be unnerving, so be gentle with yourself.

At this point, if you cannot relate to at least one potential aspect of the other person’s point of view, you might not be ready to engage in a direct conversation on that particular topic. However, if you can, try leading a potential conversation from that place of empathy. “I may not agree with what you believe about..., but I do think i can understand why you might think that way. Can we talk more about your why?” Your “W” should be one you genuinely can relate to. There is no replacement for empathy in effective communication.  All the sound logic in the world can’t stack up against a sense that the person you are talking to actually has a willingness to give some value to what you think/believe, even if they don’t agree.

It goes without saying, but this exercise is meant to be done in person and not be rushed.  Avoid doing this over text or social media.  The wider the divergence in opinion, the closer in proximity the conversation should likely be.  Remember, lead with an offer to be an empathetic ear and ask the same of them.  Ask if they are curious to understand any part of your perspective.  Establish some ground rules, for example, one person gets to finish before the other begins.  No actual debate should begin until both have had a chance to be fully heard.  To be honest, if no debate occurs, and you are both able to better understand each other’s views a little better, that can be constructive too.

I’ve said a lot, but if you can remember anything, be willing to question yourself before you question anyone else.  May fruitful revelations follow.