‘Are you winning the discussion or losing each other’. This slogan struck me on the radio. It turns out to be from Sire. The sentence hit me in my heart. This is, in my opinion, what causes the polarization in the Netherlands to arise, worsen, and persist. So, the opposite must be the solution to reduce polarization and bring people closer together…
In everyday life
When we think of polarization, it often seems to be about politics. Take the average debate in parliament: is it really a debate? Or is it a competition with the goal of taking the other down and thus winning? I get the impression that it’s about who “wins” the debate rather than finding a good solution.
But it happens just as much in everyday life. At work, at home, on the street; we often try to prove who is right; to win the discussion, and in the process, we lose each other. People dig into their own bubble; their own truths, and sometimes, they don’t stop proving that they are right and therefore winning. Especially on subjects that are close to our hearts. We can all think of a few.
An example
Een voorbeeld van een onderwerp, waarvan ik in mijn praktijk vaak hoor dat het speelt. Een gesprek tussen twee mensen met twee meningen:
Jan: “Working from home is good for employees. They can manage their own time, are much more effective, and blah blah blah.”
Marie: “Working from home is not good for employees. It is bad for the work-life balance, creativity, and it does not promote the team feeling, because blah blah blah.”
Jan: “Yes, but flexibility is one of the most important things for employees. I read on website X that… providing evidence of his own right…”
Marie: “I don’t believe that at all. It depends on what you google on the internet. My experience is… I noticed that our team no longer knows how to find each other. People are drifting apart. We are also less creative because we no longer have time to brainstorm. Because of that…”
Jan: “That may be your feeling or observation, but research clearly shows that…providing evidence of his own right… Besides, I’ve been around for a while, and in the past…”
Marie eventually gives up. She has less evidence than Jan and concedes defeat. They have opposite opinions and are losing each other.
It can be different
Jan: “Working from home is good for employees. They can manage their own time, are much more effective, and blah blah blah.”
Marie: “Working from home is not good for employees. It is bad for the work-life balance, creativity, and it does not promote the team feeling, because blah blah blah.”
Jan: “That’s funny. We both think very differently about it. What is your experience with working from home?”
Marie: I find it difficult to stop, take a break. I often skip my lunch. I feel like I have to be continuously available. If I just go to the bakery to get a sandwich, I feel guilty.”
Jan: “Mmm, I recognize that feeling guilty. As I said, I am much more productive, but indeed, I take few breaks. At the end of the day, I have a stiff neck from all that computer work.”
Marie: “Yes, I recognize that stiff neck too. And of course, I am also more productive at home, but yeah, I miss the contact with colleagues. Bouncing ideas off each other. Having fun.”
Jan: “That you need to bounce ideas, I understand. Can’t that also be done online?”
Marie: “Yes, of course, but then it’s shorter, more functional. There’s no time for a chat, a joke. And creativity certainly cannot be forced online, in my experience.”
Jan: “Yes, that might be true. Online, the meeting starts precisely at 9 a.m., while in the office, everyone trickles in a bit earlier and we chat a bit. Then you have more fun with each other.”
Same topics. A different conversation. Different outcome.
Nobody wins the conversation, and Jan and Marie haven’t lost each other. In fact, they find each other on some points.
What’s so different in the second conversation?
- Jan takes the effort to find out how Marie thinks about something and listens to her answer. ⇒ One person can start by listening to the other. That’s in our circle of influence!
- Jan is curious about Marie’s response and doesn’t try to refute it. ⇒ Jan is open and not trapped in his own truth or ideas.
- Because Jan does this, there is literally space for Marie. She is willing to do the same for Jan: asking, listening, being open, and letting go of her own truth.
- Jan and Marie don’t want to win; they set aside their egos and try to understand each other.
- Understanding arises on both sides, which increases the connection
Agree to disagree agreeably
However, having such a conversation and really trying to understand each other does not mean that you have to agree with each other. Jan and Marie find each other in some things, but it doesn’t have to be that way. You don’t have to deviate from your own ideas, values, and norms. You don’t have to shift towards the other if you don’t agree with each other.
If you don’t agree, after truly listening to each other, the conversation ends at the level of feeling respect for/getting to know the other and understanding why the other acts or thinks that way. Agree to disagree agreeably, so to speak.
Try it…
…at home or at work. What happens when you really try to understand the other before trying to be understood? Not just transmitting your message but also listening to and being open to the other. (For more information, I refer to The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Habit 5, by Stephen Covey.) Try it. It will improve your conversations and relationships. After all, listening is a massive deposit on someone’s emotional bank account.
If you enjoy sharing your experiences, contact me or write a comment on this blog.
Regards,
