Our country is more divided than ever. So how do you deal with hot button issues that are almost sure to spark a debate, if not an argument?
When we are with extended family, we tend to just avoid the subject. We have a pretty good idea where others stand, and if we disagree, we don’t think it’s worth engaging in a fight. This isn’t necessarily being self-differentiated, but sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. Pick your battles. Some are worth fighting for. Most are not. For me, being with family is more important than being right.
But what do you do if somebody in your family, congregation or organization wants to engage in a thorny issue?
Here’s what not to do.
Adam Grant, in his book, Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know , shares three types of modes that I would avoid when engaging in a difficult subject (originally developed Philip Tetlock, Grant’s Wharton colleague).
The first is preacher mode. This is when you know you are right, and you want the other person to agree with you. You wax poetic about all the reasons why you believe what you believe. This is being self-defined, but not necessarily self-differentiated. If you’re so passionate about what you believe that you don’t leave space for others to disagree then you’re going to get pushback.
The second approach is prosecutor mode. In this case you know you’re right and you try to convince the other that they are wrong. You present an ironclad case against their position. Again this is self-defined but not self-differentiated.
In either preacher mode or prosecutor mode you will create a conflict of wills. The evidence shows that this will not only cause pushback, but it will cause the other to believe more strongly in their position.
The third mode is politician. This is when you don’t take a stand, but you try to just get along with others, typically without sharing what you really believe. This is not self-defined, it’s adaptive. This is usually my default mode, since I like to avoid conflict, if possible. The problem is, as my seminary buddy used to say, “Someday, Jack Shitama, you’re gonna have to jump off the fence.”
So what do you do when somebody wants to engage in a difficult subject? You’ve heard me say this before, but the best thing you can do is listen. Grant calls this scientist mode. He shares this with the idea that we might change our minds. Scientists are always looking for more data. They don’t care whether their hypothesis is proven right or wrong, they just want to know the truth.
If you ask questions with genuine curiosity, you will not only be less anxious, but you might even learn something that will change the way you think. That’s not a bad thing. This requires you to let go of the need to be right, but this is what non-anxious leaders do.
The point is that listening to others creates emotional space by being a non-anxious presence. If you do need to take a stand, you can do it with humility. My two go-to prefacing statements are, “I may be wrong but…” and “You don’t have to agree with me but…”
You can believe strongly in your closely held values. You can work to make them a reality. These are good things.
But a non-anxious leader knows that she may be wrong. She also cares about other people enough to respect that they may disagree.
The thing I love about the Christian faith and the model that Jesus gave for leadership is that we don’t judge others, and we accept them where they are (no matter how wrong or flawed we might think they are).
The willingness to listen is not a weakness, it’s a superpower. This is not just the best practical approach, but it will help you and the people you lead. It might even cause you to change your mind. That may not be a bad thing.