Passion may hurt you more than help you in your next argument.
That’s a conclusion of new research into persuasion by a pair of university academics and reported by Shankar Vedantam of NPR. Passion, often highly prized by leaders, may actually work against that leader if he or she is trying to reach out to someone who may not agree with them. Passion works when communicating people who share your point of view but it actually does the opposite to those with whom you disagree. Anyone who has argued politics – or the merits of Star Trek over Star Wars (or vice versa) -- can attest. [More on Trek vs. the Force in a moment.]
This new research into persuasion really is confirmation of what all good leaders do when seeking consensus; they first seek to understand what the other is thinking and why they are thinking it. They then construct their argument in ways that appeal to others. At its basest form this is called pandering, telling people what they want to hear regardless of your own beliefs.
However, by appealing to the way people think and the convictions they hold the leader has a much better chance of being heard, and perhaps persuaded. Such technique is not pandering; rather it is an acknowledgement of someone else’s point of view and your willingness to note it respectfully.
Respect for others is essential. One reason political discourse in our country is so vile these days is because politicians fail to acknowledge the humanity of the opposition. Rather they seek to demonize it. Typically adults outgrow this tendency sometime in high school but when it comes to politicians it seems they are perpetually adolescent, at least when it comes when framing their arguments.
So how can you put respect for others into your communications? Here are questions to ask
How does the other person see the world? This question addresses the other person’s value system. We must be careful to look past rhetoric to undercover what is shaping how another person thinks. That requires putting aside your own prejudice so you can look at the work through another lens.
How can I frame my argument in terms my opposite understands? Relate your values to the others. When you scratch the surface many people can agree on what is good for others – love, security, opportunity and integrity. Connecting the dots between what you believe and what another believes begins the process of interlacing your values in ways that promote mutual understanding.
How can we find common ground? Know what you know about the other person you have a foundation upon which to build your argument. Focus on the values the other person holds and relate them to values you hold.
Answering these questions will begin to open the door to better understanding. Initially facts will be less important than values. Why? Too often we know that facts are manipulated so we are less trusting. Values are personal. Connecting on values – related to what you truly believe – provide an opening for mutual trust.
Now let’s apply this thinking to the Star Wars vs. Star Trek debate. While there are fans who like both intergalactic franchises, there are partisan divides. Star Wars fans enjoy the series’ fantasy aspect while Star Trek fans gravitate more toward the shows’ existential questions. Both fans appreciate special effects, surely but that will not earn loyalty to one side or another. What wins over fans is a connection to the value principle. A Star Wars fan can relate the good vs. evil paradigm to Spock’s Vulcan bias for reason. Or a Trekie might position Captain Kirk’s leadership principles to Luke Skywalker’s quest for justice. Low stakes bartering for certain but it is a good way to test your persuasion chops.
Not every argument can be won, of course. But when you argue over issues in a dispassionate manner, you may discover ways of working together that benefit not just your side, but as many sides as possible.
Note: The study quoted above was conducted by Matthew Feinberg of the Rotman School of Management at University of Toronto and Robb Willer of the Department of Sociology at Stanford.
