Disagreements don’t have to be destructive. They can be opportunities to come up with better ideas. But handling a conversation with someone with conflicting points of view is never easy. His three strategies that the author identified in his research can help.
Executive leadership teams at various companies have discussed divisive issues ranging from whether to embrace hybrid work to whether to introduce quotas for women and minorities at various levels within the organization. In many of these discussions, leaders often had heated discussions with each other that were not very productive. As a result, they left the meeting feeling distressed and frustrated.
In the workplace, disagreements with people who hold different opinions and ideas than yours are common. Disagreements can lead to better outcomes if handled properly, but they are usually not viewed as such. In a recent, unpublished survey of more than 500 of his executives from various organizations, the noun most commonly associated with conflict in the workplace was “fight.” The most common adjective was “dysfunctional.” People face disagreements all the time, but usually they (and their conversation partners) fail to communicate effectively, fostering conflict and undermining relationships.
You don’t have to do it this way.our new researchOver 2,000 people in multiple studies. Here are the three strategies we use:
1. Concentrate on what you have to learn.
People regularly express their disagreements with the aim of proving their point and persuading the other side. They want to show them that they are right and others are wrong and that they are ready to fight. This is a common approach, but it doesn’t give the results people want.
People get along better when they face conflict with a willingness to learn. In one study, a research participant was shown information about two potential conversation partners of hers. Neither of them agreed with the participant’s opinion on the topical topic (i.e. preferential recruitment of women in STEM fields). We told some participants that their conversation partner wanted to persuade them. We told others that our conversation partner wanted to learn from them.
Most of the participants (78%) said they would like to interact with partners who are willing to learn their point of view. This may not come as a surprise, but many people do not take this approach.
2. Don’t underestimate other people’s interest in learning from you.
How people experience conflict and how it ultimately unfolds is greatly influenced by their perception of the other person’s thoughts and feelings. You may enter the conversation with curiosity and humility, but if you don’t feel that the other person is reciprocating, you will be attacked with anger. After all, tango needs two of him. The problem is that people tend to misunderstand the intentions of those who disagree.
In one study, 600 participants were asked to write down their objectives when speaking to someone who had a dissenting opinion on an issue and the objectives they believed the conversation partner had. Our participants had little confidence in their partner’s desire to learn and understand their point of view. In fact, only 16% of her goals cited by participants as a purpose to oppose others mentioned a desire to learn, and 71% stated an intention to persuade. (The remaining 13% did not fit into either category.)
In contrast, people were much more generous about their own intentions: 42% of self-reported goals mentioned a desire to learn about their point of view, and 39% focused on persuading others. (20% said neither.) This underestimation of a dissident’s willingness to learn about dissent applies when considering conversations about politics or their favorite sports team. Trends suggest that this pattern spreads across different regions.
Consistently, our research found that most people stated that they were more advanced than their conversation partner in learning about the other’s opposing point of view during confrontational conversations. This difference persisted even after 10 minutes of conversations with people who disagreed about the 2020 US presidential election. In other words, the act of actually speaking to the person on the other end did not convince people that the other person was willing to learn about their point of view.
But there was a glimmer of hope. Those who believed that the other person intended to learn about their point of view during the conversation enjoyed the conversation more and rated the other person more positively. They fought hard in his 2020 U.S. presidential election, but simply believing that their opponents wanted to learn from them made the participants more moral, objective, and admirable. I came to see them as intelligent, likeable, and trustworthy. In fact, beliefs about partners’ willingness to learn from them were the single most important factors predicting conflict outcomes, including partner evaluation and interaction enjoyment. Importantly, these beliefs were stronger predictors of outcome than the conversational partner’s actual (self-reported) willingness to learn about the other’s opinion.
3. Clarify your intentions.
Given that the other party likely underestimated your willingness to learn, you need to be more direct and clear about your intentions. Our research found that it only takes a few sentences to clearly and effectively communicate your intention to learn about the other person’s point of view.
For example, before stating your opinion, you can say: I would like to know what people who disagree with me think about this issue. ” Then I can conclude my argument with:
Especially when disagreements can seriously affect your life at work. Yet we conflict in anticipation of being yelled at to ourselves as to why our most deeply held views are wrong. shape and ultimately shape our experience. According to our research, the remedy is to focus on what you can change about the other person’s beliefs about you by demonstrating exactly the kind of behavior you hope to elicit.
