How to disagree at work
In a polarised world, there’s a proven method to bring people around to your point of view.
(4-minute read.)
Gabrielle Wong-Parodi is used to debating climate deniers. Refreshingly, the professor in Climate Science from Stanford, acknowledges that the way in which she went about this earlier in her career was often counterproductive. Telling people they are wrong – no matter how strong your evidence – simply tends to invite what psychologists call the ‘backfire effect.’ You have probably been there; both parties go away simply more entrenched in their point of view.
Regardless of the evidence, we humans just don’t like to hear that we’ve got it wrong. When we feel that our opinions are being challenged, our instinct is to pushback harder. Sound familiar?
Diversity of opinion
While disagreements over social media are increasingly shouty and polarising, in the workplace, the lack of constructive disagreement can be equally corrosive – albeit in an unspoken and passive aggressive way. Organizations claim that they value diversity of opinion, but their employees sense something quite different. They soon recognise that there’s little benefit in being the one who speaks out.
This is what the organizational psychologist George Bateson calls the “cultural double-bind”. It occurs when people receive two contradictory messages, and whichever one they follow carries a social cost.
Diversity of thought
In organisations, this shows up as: “we value diversity of thought,” but disagreement is subtly punished. As UCLA Management Professor Samuel A Culbert puts it bluntly, too many organizations end up being “mired in verbal dishonesty.”
Beginning to recognise the picture?
Failure to disagree constructively is damaging
Whether it’s at work, or in a more public forum, this failure to disagree constructively is damaging. Without it, ideas cannot be tested and challenged, truth suffers, and the best solutions or paths forward fail to emerge.
Climate change – like gay marriage, trans rights, or immigration – is what political scientists call a “wedge” issue. These are issues that appear to be so wedded to people’s identity and values, that common ground with those with whom they disagree seems impossible. Quite simply “wedges” divide. And we have increasingly seen them being exploited by unscrupulous politicians.
But don’t despair just yet.
Wong-Parodi learnt something important that she’s keen to share. We’re most effective in debate when we show that we respect people’s values and stance on climate change before “engaging with climate information.”
Psychological defence mechanisms
When we confront people with the idea that they are wrong for believing what they do, we tend to trigger their psychological defence mechanisms. In the workplace, most of us self-identify as being smart. If you tell me I’m making the wrong call, it’s going to jar with my self-image. You’ve just boosted my incentive to resist. In the political arena, if you suggest that I’ve got my values wrong, you turbo-charge my incentive to push back.
It’s far more effective to seek out common values and common ground, and then seek to understand why people believe what they do. At this point – and no sooner – they will be more likely to listen to an alternative viewpoint with open ears and an open mind.
Person-centred therapy
Carl Rogers, the pioneer of person-centred therapy, called this the “paradox of change” – people are willing to change most when they feel accepted as they are: I am willing to change my opinion, as long as the change fits with the way I see myself.
The approach is also validated by evidence from a small-US based political canvassing group called LAB, (which stands for Learn-Action-Build.)
LAB canvasses on behalf of the LGBTQ+ community. Two things stand out about them: Firstly, their rejection of the idea that it’s simply impossible to influence those who disagree with us on wedge issues; and secondly their determination to take an evidence-led approach to identifying what works.
Evidence-led approach
Based on their painstaking and data-driven research, they developed a methodology to change people’s minds on subjects about which they tend to have entrenched views – such as gay marriage. The method was used when canvassing people door to door.
It has seven features:
- Establish rapport
- Ask the person you’re trying to persuade to rate how strongly they feel about the issue on a scale of 1 to 10
- Ask why that number feels right to them
- Listen respectfully and reflect what you believe they have said, checking that you have summarised it accurately
- Ask if there was a time in their life when they felt differently and, if so, what has led them to their current view
- Share a brief personal story about how you reached your view (but don’t argue with them)
- Ask them now how they would rate how strongly they feel and wish them well.
Heart of influence
There is plenty of hard evidence to suggest that this method works.
What do Parodi’s and LAB’s approaches have in common? The starting point is seeking to understand the other person. Rapport is at the heart of influence. And rapport starts with genuinely seeking understanding. It’s very hard not to like and respect someone who genuinely wants to listen to us.
Reasons we disagree
Most of us are smart enough to understand that the reason we disagree is not because the other person is dumb or bad, but because we are viewing the situation from different perspectives. But understanding this alone is not enough. If our wisdom stops there, we are limited to trying to get the other person to come across to our side and see things from our point of view. They counter by insisting that we come across and see things from their point of view. We’re stuck in simply another form of push-and-pushback.
On the other hand, we humans are a social species, and like any social species we are bound by a strong instinct to reciprocate. If people feel respected and emotionally safe, assuming they are decent sane and rational (and most are) they will listen to you, provided you have first listened to them.
Influence at work
When do you need to influence someone at work? Here’s how to start the conversation:
- Remind yourself that the person with whom you are about to talk is your potential problem solver not your problem
- Start the conversation by acknowledging your shared interests and common values
- Acknowledge respectfully the areas where you disagree and ask the other person to talk you through their thinking
- Ask permission to share your thinking (this will almost always get a ‘yes.’)
Advanced influencing skills
When we train senior leaders in advanced influencing skills, we encourage them to start with the principle of “first let me understand you.” They learn that this may take a little more patience at first, but they soon learn that it opens doors more rapidly than any of the quick hacks that the internet is awash with. And because the relationship is built or rapport and a desire for mutual understanding, those doors tend to stay open.
To find out how we can help leaders in your organisation to be more impactful, influential and persuasive visit www.threshold.co.uk
