Tips for civil disagreement
It’s unfortunate that it takes a tragedy to get so many people in the United States talking about the kind of language we use in policy and strategy arguments. Here are some tips that can help professionals engage in arguments that are more likely to be both civil and productive.
• Focus on the topic, not the person. Personal attacks rarely get the other person to change their views or behaviors. More often, they get met with other personal attacks or angry silence – neither of which helps.
• Know that the argument may be about more than the thing being argued. In a community that has been abused or ignored by previous developers, a community’s opposition to a proposed land use might be more about anger with developers than with the proposal. If an argument is generating more emotion than would seem reasonable, there’s probably more there that you need to explore.
• Do not assume you know the person’s motivation. When someone makes a personal attack, it is sometimes because that person thinks he or she knows what lies behind the other person’s objections.
• Seek to understand before seeking to be understood. Make sure you’re hearing the other person correctly. (One way is to put the person’s comments in your own language and saying something like “did I get that right?”) If you’re getting it right, but the other person isn’t, ask the person if you could clarify your remarks. (Don’t say anything like “Did you understand what I just said.” That can sound patronizing.)
• Understand the other person's logic and the reasons for their emotions. Too many professionals think that others reject their ideas because they don't understand them. In other words, if the professional could "teach" opponents about a strategy, the opponents would agree with the planner. The problem is sometimes the professional's education -- he or she hasn't learned enough about their audience's perspectives and mindsets. Most reasonable people make rational decisions according to their own views of the world.
• Use a zipper strategy – find the areas of agreement and build up from there. In most communities and organizations, people want many of the same things. Talking about what they agree on can help opponents think of themselves more as collaborators than enemies, and build creative solutions that neither group thought of before.
• Acknowledge your areas of newfound agreement. You can do this formally in contracts, or informally through reminders in future conversations.
• Be confident, courageous and creative. There are times when avoiding an argument might be a good short-term strategy. But avoidance over time usually leads to frustration, and eventually more problems. Have the courage to both present your views and be willing to consider those of the other person. Be creative enough to collaborate with your opponent and see solutions that neither of you initially imagined.
• Give, and request to get, respect for your opponent's views. If you refuse to acknowledge another's views, you can not get to a point where you can understand the person. (Hearing enough just to beat down an argument doesn't count.) It's also important that you speak from a position of strength by asking others to understand your views.
All of the above assume that the participants are willing to listen to one another and are, for the most part, honest. Sometimes this isn’t the case. In those circumstances – and you should test your understandings to know if you’re in those circumstances – you might need to take more aggressive (but not violent) approaches. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose birthday we celebrate Monday, knew there were times when a loud demonstration worked better than a quiet conversation.
No comments:
Post a Comment