A good friend of mine asked me the other day, “how do you navigate issues… it seems like you have a very gentle way of dealing with issues with people?”
I have heard that many times, and my first reaction is one of pride. I do love that some people sense that about me, because I give a lot of thought and care as to how to deal with “issues”.
My second reaction, however, was, I know there are MANY people who would disagree with the fact that I handle issues gently. This second reaction is also very true for two reasons; for one, I am far from perfect despite my attempts to be caring, and two, I try to deal with hard issues and many hard issues, despite the most caring of approaches, are received harshly and not caringly.
Regardless, I do spent ridiculous amounts of time thinking about how to deal with issues and people, and it is very much around the concept of harmony.
1. TWO ISLANDS
When people address an issue, I so often see them addressing them as the last survivors on “two islands”. Each one believing that their island is the better one, and the objective of the issue resolution is to convince people to swim over from their island to ours.
Even if people, “try” to listen and be considerate and open minded, they often go into conversations with their feet firmly planted on their island. When we are open minded, we are often in a place that says, “I could change my mind” versus the more ideal location of “lets figure out the best solution together.”
I try like crazy to take no ownership over an island going into a conversation. I try as best as I can to have conversations “swimming in the water” or on the other person’s island.
This changes the complete nature of the conversation.
Instead of entering a conversation with two people, or two sides of an argument, yelling louder and trying their best to “convince” the person or people on the other island that “ours makes more sense”, I like to enter conversations as an “explorer”.
“Tell me about THIS island?” I try to ask a lot of questions and I work to make sure that neither “position” is owned. I talk about the facts of the different parts of the conversation. As much as possible, I separate the islands from the people. I try to recognize each position on its own merits.
Engaging in conversation truly separate from the “right conclusion” changes everything. People see you interested and curious in learning about what they think is right - slowly disentangling “positions” or “islands” from people. Acknowledging sincerely the value and benefit of every position makes people trust that you “get” why that idea makes sense. They start to TRUST you and it starts to become less about your island or mine, it starts to become a conversation that WE are engaged in. Then you can start to examine other islands… ideally more than just one…
And, you stop looking at them as “islands”… you start realizing that all positions are so often “intertwined” and often part of the same “earth”(possibly overusing the metaphor).
I try to through the conversation show that all of the options are somehow connected, and acknowledge the reality (which is most often the case) that all of the options have pros and cons.
I truly believe this is possible if people trust that you are not convinced of a single position, but sincerely exploring all. This gives them the trust to explore with you. “Jump in the water, lets go look around at what is out here…”
I often find that there are options or islands that include many of the benefits of both initial positions that people are arguing. So often, its an AND – not an OR. We can dam up the water around us and create a solution that embodies both of our initial positions or parts of both.
Also, in a conversation discussing A vs B, I so often find that discussing WHY we are looking for an island to begin with is a great conversation. It gets us away from “which is the right answer” and engages us in a conversation about “what makes a great answer… or what problem are we truly trying to solve.”
DEPERSONALIZING the solutions is key.
EXPLORING the options and acknowledging all of their merits and liabilities is key.
NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE PEOPLE OF THE ISLAND, but rather of the “criteria” for the solution is key.
One colleague who is exceptional in many ways, never wants to engage in a discussion unless they have “all of the facts” BEFORE the conversation. I keep telling them, if you have all of the facts and have concluded your position – that is not a conversation but rather a TRIAL. They do it with the best of intentions, but it creates very defensive and one-sided exchanges.
The moment I realize that we are not all on the same island – I try to get us all to jump in the water and huddle around to figure out where we should go. I don’t want to know which is the best solution, because if I figure it out by myself… others may not want to join me. So, I’d rather figure it out together.
IF I have heard enough facts that I have reached a “conclusion”… I try like crazy to erase it from my mind, at least temporarily to see if we can reach that same conclusion together… versus working to get everyone to what I have already concluded to be right.
I know it sounds too good to be true, or maybe oversimplified, but WATCH people in conversations… even if they didn’t start owning an island, they often start knowing which islands they NEVER want to visit, or which people they will NEVER trust. Any of those predispositions – creates defensiveness, lack of trust, and disharmonic exchanges.
If I cant figure out a way to trust you enough to jump in the water together… there is no way to find a solution that will work for both of us. That is why couples or relationships that are past a point of distrust, can almost never find their way back…
One of the most obvious examples of the “two island negotiations” strategy currently in play is the one by the Democrats and Republicans in government. Everything is set up as a “win-lose”. Every argument, decision is need is addressed as a “right and wrong”. The issues are complex, and instead of jumping back and forth from island to island depending on who is in charge… it would be great to build an entire continent of rationality with a more balanced solution set and more open minds. We all need to share this “island” called the United States, and the state of the conversation is beyond dysfunctional.
2. GIVE ENOUGH SPACE (continued tomorrow… think about the islands first.)
Yours in harmony,
Nestor