Photo by Christina @ wocintechchat.com on Unsplash
Do you sometimes find yourself at odds with people you care about? Maybe it’s something as ordinary as what to have for dinner. Or political differences that seem intractable.
Would you like some new strategies to find common ground on things that really matter?
If so, read on.
I recently listened to an episode of the podcast Hidden Brain that featured psychologist Julia Minson. Dr. Minson is an Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Her research focuses on the “psychology of disagreement,” in other words, how do people engage with opinions, judgments and decisions that are different from their own?
Great question, especially these days!
In the interview, she makes the premise that it’s not necessary or even desirable to aim for common ground on every difference you have. For example, you might be a huge Red Sox fan and have loud and boisterous disagreements with your best friend about the Yankees vs the Red Sox. Neither of you is actually trying to change the other person’s mind; you’re just having a spirited disagreement. It’s pleasant and serves to maintain your connection with one another.
There’s another kind of difference that often leads to conflict. That’s when you believe one thing and the other person believes something very different. This difference can become an emotionally charged conflict when you don’t accept the person’s belief and you feel the need to change their mind. This happens regularly with political or ideological differences.
But it’s not only political or ideological differences. For example, my husband and I have a decades-old difference about his driving style (hint: he used to race cars as a hobby). We are both fully dug into our positions and have well developed theories about why we’re each right.
Minson asserts that a first step toward seeking common ground is determining whether it really matters that you and the other person are more aligned. She offers three specific criteria for “mattering.”
First, is it important? Using my example above, it’s important to me that my husband drive in a way that enables me to feel calm and relaxed rather than tense and on edge.
Second, are you and the other person interdependent? When we’re riding in the same car, you bet we’re interdependent. When he’s alone, he can drive any way he wants. I’m confident that he’s a skillful driver. I just want him to tone it down when I’m in the car.
Third, is there “evidentiary skew”? What this means is do I believe the evidence is overwhelmingly on my side? In my example, I might point to the speed limit, the other drivers who react negatively to his style, and the fact that not all drivers on the road have the same skill he does. He might point out that he’s rarely had an accident, raced cars (and won races) for decades, and has a highly responsive car. I’d say we each believe the evidence is overwhelmingly on our sides!
Clearly, this is something that matters to me, and worth trying Minson’s strategies to see if we can make progress on this longstanding difference.
She refers to this approach as “conversational receptiveness” and recommends a four-step formula, captured in the acronym HEAR.
H stands for “hedging”. Rather than strongly asserting your request, belief or conclusion, state it equivocally. Using “perhaps” or “maybe” as a starting point can signal to the other person that you aren’t defending your position or attacking theirs. We all know what happens when we come across as being in possession of the truth. It often drives others to take an opposing position. I might say, “Maybe we could find a driving speed that we both can live with.”
E stands for “emphasize agreement.” Instead of arguing that my husband’s evidence for continuing to drive the way he does is hogwash, I could say, “I completely agree that your driving record is impressive” or, “well, you do get us there in record time!”
A stands for “acknowledge the other person’s perspective.” You don’t have to buy in to it, you just need to communicate to the other person that you understand their point of view. I might say, “I know driving fast is something you enjoy and you’ve got a perfect car to have fun with.”
R stands for “reframe to the positive.” Instead of continuing to badger my husband about what I want him to stop doing (he sees it as nagging, which causes more frustration on his part), I might say, “it’s important to me that I feel calm and relaxed while we’re driving together.”
I had two big ahas from this interview. First, it’s helpful to figure out whether trying to find common ground really matters using the three criteria. Some differences don’t need to be addressed.
Second, there are proven ways to increase receptiveness to differing views using the strategies captured in the HEAR acronym.
I’d love to hear your thoughts about this post. More importantly, I’d love for you to try this out and let me know how it worked. Please leave a comment below.
If you’re interested in a deeper dive in the area of conversational receptiveness, here are a couple of great articles:
P.S. If you like this blog post, sign up for my newsletter, right here. Or forward this to a friend and invite them to sign up.