Recently a colleague of mine here on Forbes, David Williams, wrote a rebuttal to a post I'd written a few weeks earlier. I was very interested to see what he would write; based on posts of his that I'd read, I felt that he and I were mostly aligned in our philosophies about work and leadership. It was hard for me to imagine how he'd disagree with the core of my message. .
When I read his post, I realized that his disagreement was based on a truly profound misunderstanding of what I'd said...and that we were actually in agreement. To boil it down: my main point was that when organizations value avoiding conflict over being honest, all kinds of bad things happen. David believed I was saying that if people in organizations are kind, respectful and supportive of one another, they can't be honest. And he was disagreeing with what he thought I'd said. He believes that colleagues can be kind, respectful and supportive while still being straightforward and honest. His entire post was written though that lens: he went on to talk about how trust, kindness and respect are more supportive of an organization's success than criticism and disrespect. The irony is that I agree 100%, and have written many posts making exactly the same points.
In our work, we call this phenomenon "violent agreement" - when two people actually have similar points of view, but think they're disagreeing, and quite often end up arguing - simply because they're not really hearing each other. When we're facilitating groups, we note at the beginning of the session that this is one of the ways we'll be supporting the group's success: to watch for these "violent agreements" and help to untangle them before they derail the group's work.
Because they can: I've seen over the years that people thinking they have opposing points of view, when they really don't, can unnecessarily tie up huge amounts of people's mental and emotional energy - the folks involved generally feel angry, frustrated, and not heard, and others can get pulled into the 'disagreement.' Lines get drawn, positions harden...and all based on a simple misunderstanding.
So how can you avoid this kind of unnecessary and unhelpful misunderstanding with your own colleagues?
Know your triggers. Too often, specific words trigger deep misunderstanding. David notes in his post that he and his colleagues have often been accused of being "too nice" - by people who are using that phrase to mean "if you guys are so focused on being trusting and respectful, you're not going to be able to give bad news, to hold each other accountable, or give appropriate feedback." Based on that past experience, it must have been easy for him to assume that I was implying the same thing in using that phrase. It's useful to know what your 'triggers' are, so that they don't get tripped inappropriately. For instance, I have a trigger around the phrase "strategic planning." When someone uses that phrase in conversation with me, I tend to assume they don't value the vision aspect of strategy, and are too focused on financial modeling vs. other aspects of organization success. I have to be very careful not to respond based on that assumption (which is often not accurate). And the best way to do that is to...
Get curious. When I engage my curiosity, I go from thinking "You're saying X," to "I wonder if you're saying X?" Curiosity is the engine of exploration, the need to find out more. It opens up our minds to the possibility that the other person may not be saying what we think they're saying, but something else entirely. If you can shift yourself into that "I wonder..." mindset when you think you have a disagreement with someone, the entire focus of the conversation will shift. You'll move from focusing on making your opposing point as clearly as possible to finding out what the other person actually means. And one great way to do that is...
Check your understanding. Simply ask the other person - "Are you saying X?" or "Do you think Y?". This can often resolve seemingly intractable disagreements. Recently I was working with the executive team of a client company, and the head of marketing was convinced that the head of HR thought her two most senior folks weren't capable. She was making a passionate case for their competence, and the head of HR was looking confused and taken aback. I interrupted, gently, and turned to the head of HR. "Are you saying you don't think her folks are strong enough to do their jobs?" I asked. "Oh my gosh, not at all," he replied, "I think they're both excellent. I was saying that because their positions are so critical, it's essential that we give them the support and developmental opportunities they need to keep growing and being successful." The head of marketing completely agreed - and they went on to talk about how best to do that.
And if you're on the receiving end of the misunderstanding (the person being misunderstood vs. the one who's doing the misunderstanding) you can simply turn this advice around. Try to see where the other person's "trigger" of misunderstanding is; get curious about what the other person thinks you're saying; and based on that, ask, "It sounds like you think I'm saying X...is that so?" That may provide the chance for you to clarify your actual point, and for the other person to understand what you're really saying.
Just imagine what would happen in your business if even some of the disagreements people get into turned out to be "violent agreements." And I'd love to hear if you've ever had this experience, of thinking you and another person had opposing points of view, only to find that you were actually in agreement...
________________
Check out Erika Andersen’s latest book, Leading So People Will Follow, and discover how to be a followable leader. Booklist called it “a book to read more than once and to consult many times.”
Want to know what Erika and her colleagues at Proteus do? Find out here.
Get fresh ideas and exclusive content – join Erika’s Insider List
