Talk to Me: Does Conversation Matter?
We would be seriously remiss if we ignored what is right in front of us – the US presidential, congressional, and myriad local elections. So much is at stake for how we live, work, and play together. When Debbie and I read that 47% of Americans believe a US civil war is likely in their lifetime, the shape of conflict and how groups “do” disagreement took on an even deeper sense of urgency.
One thing we know for sure from our own experiences is that sitting down and talking through a disagreement is pretty close to the top of things many folks absolutely do not want to do. And if the conversation turns political, it appears there’s even less willingness. In fact, we were not surprised to find that Pew Research reports consistently over the years that a majority of folks find having a political conversation with people they disagree with stressful. As important, folks report that not only are the conversations stressful or frustrating, but also that they are not even informative or interesting.
Given the emphasis we place on conversation as a tool in our collaboration toolkit, we got curious about this political talk - and its escalation. How are people talking (or not) when they disagree about fundamental needs like belonging and values they hold dear and close? What happens when conversation, a crucial tool for collaboration, is taken off the table?
And even more importantly given our Good Collaborations work, what happens when there are structured conversations? What happens when there are supports for conversations across these ever-widening aisles?
Some good news here:
Speaking in a structured in-person conversation “with people from the other side of the political spectrum reduced partisan hostility by almost 20%.”
When folks gain perspective on folks not like them, their attitudes toward conflict change. More specifically, when researchers incentivized looking at what “the other side” believes accurately, they found folks could let go of the intensity of what they negatively believed.
On the ground the research above , shared with us by political scientist Dr. Marsha Marotta, reveals some interesting and important beliefs about how conflict works: When adversaries see each other as operating from places of malintent, they also tend to believe that conflict is intractable, there isn’t a way out of impasse on important issues, and that working together is not really desirable. When researchers incentivized looking at what “the other side” believes accurately, they found folks could let go of the intensity of what they negatively believed about the “others” and be more open to creative solution-finding. The lesson here is that taking some time to imagine what “the opposing side” might be all about changed beliefs about the nature of conflict itself.
We know conversations can go badly, they can go sideways, they can be painful. So, how can we work to structure the hard conversations to support understanding rather than escalation?
Sometimes it’s too early for conversation and de-escalation needs to happen before groups can work together.
Creating safe, trauma-informed spaces to do the work. That means slowing down, preparing people to be together. That can take time and creativity to cultivate the conditions for engagement.
We believe in people. We believe in self-determination. We will never insist that folks stay in conversation. And sometimes that means conversations need to stop, folks need to re-group and evaluate next best steps.
Consider seriously with folks individually and in groups: What happens if conversations stop? Is imagining change harder than continuing the way things are going? What possibilities does the group give up if they stop imagining something different?
A new direction in conversation might be in order: After evaluation, are cultural changes to the organization really at the core of what’s animating a particular dispute or challenge? If an organizational culture prizes power-over dynamics, rewards positionality in disputes, lacks clear structures of decision-making or accountability it’s going to be difficult to find satisfaction in conversation without sustained attention to the everyday structures and practices that make understanding so elusive.
Other sources of support might be necessary for folks to participate in conversation? Is mediation necessary or a healing circle before organizational development work can continue? Is a pause to appreciate what’s worked in the past or in other settings in order to gain perspective? Perhaps a different group of people need to come in as sources of support?
So, yes. Conversation matters. Collaboration matters. Even when Debbie and I are stopped in our tracks by statements about folks imagining the possibility of civil war in the US or about ongoing impasse, we take heart knowing that we are joined by so many others who are committed to dialogue and hope.