For those who think Democracy should be
a collaborative experience.
September 29, 2008
More Presidential ~ Grace under Fire
Unite and Concur took on Divide and Conquer at the first presidential debate. The post debate spin was clear that John McCain came across as more combative and Barrack Obama came across as more conciliatory. McCain hit attack and did not engage Obama directly, while Obama looked to McCain as he spoke and acknowledged points of agreement. The McCain campaign had an ad out before midnight showing a medley of clips of Obama telling McCain where he agreed with him. The McCain campaign clearly thought the acknowledgement would make Obama look weak, and many Obama supporters voiced the same concern. Some suggested that Obama showed grace under fire, and wondered if that would play well on Main street.
The debate tested Unite and Concur principles, and it passed the test.
Obama was regarded as appearing “more presidential” by 46% of debate watchers, in contrast to the 33% who regarded McCain as more presidential.
As the author of Unite and Concur, I encourage all of us to show grace under fire and to appear presidential when our political ideas are challenged. The verdict is in and the polls have shown – grace under fire and a collaborative approach to dialogue is effective.
June 26, 2008
Communication Question – talking with your political opposite
Meryl,
I’m interested to hear strategies folks have employed to re-route political discussions they don’t want to have.
Some at work are vocal in sharing their strongly-held views on politics and/or religion. Regardless of my personal view on the topic, I prefer not to talk politics or religion unless it relates to the work at hand. It seems a high-risk conversation with limited potential benefit.
My father’s family regularly enjoys Socratic and roundtable debates hashing out such topics, whereas my mother is genuinely pained by such conversations and tends to escape. Her beliefs stem straight from her core and she gets genuinely upset when challenged or asked to explain them. She believes what she believes and doesn’t want to defend or explain them, nor does she seek to convert others. When others don’t share her position, she struggles to understand and avoid judging them; thus, she’d rather not go there, particularly with loved ones. Debating with dad’s side can be fun, but I respect mom’s needs enough to avoid the subject when she is in the group.
Without knowing who at work needs what on such touchy subjects, I’d rather not go there either. How can one communicate that effectively?
Meryl Responds,
I advocate having these conversations, not avoiding them. Otherwise, brash, bold and aggressive communicators dominate and the more sensitive perspectives never get heard. I imagine your mother’s aversion to these conversations is due to the fact is that most political discussions are argumentative and ungracious. She hold personal beliefs, and most political conversations treat the topic in callus, impersonal ways.
Interesting, isn’t it? – I suspect your mother’s voice is the one that most needs to be heard, and she’s the one who is reluctant to speak.
Sometimes we need to move into areas of discomfort. She (and you) could say something like:
- I have observations on this topic, but I hesitate to share them because the tone of the conversation is contentious, not cooperative. I work hard to understand what you’re saying, and if I feel like you’re willing to do the same for me, I’d be happy to share how I see the situation.
If her beliefs are deeply held, it could benefit everyone to hear them. It might shift the dialogue to a deeper level, too.
At work you could say,
I have strong feelings on this issue which I prefer not to share in a casual conversation.
That way, you can defer the conversation for a situation that respects your preference and needs.
April 7, 2008Reader question ~Who’s entitled to an opinion?
Meryl
I am increasingly troubled by the large number of people who profess opinions on matters for which they are not entitled to have an opinion. Worse yet, people are taking into consideration these totally ignorant “opinions” in making decisions!
Polls asking people who have never studied military history, tactics, strategy, or even served in the military are being taken about how we should run the war, and are then being cited as reasons to pull out of Iraq summarily. People who have never studied physics, biology, thermodynamics or even read an unbiased technical textbook on the subject are spouting off against using nuclear power because it is too dangerous and are actively blocking potential safe new energy sources. People who have never cracked a economics textbook are weighing in on the subprime mortgage crisis, answering polls and spouting off on things they know NOTHING about.
New employees who have barely worked at the company a week are full of suggestions to reform how things are done, without bothering to do any research about why things are being done they way they are. The upshot here is that they shoot themselves in the foot at work. No real harm is done, except to the person who is spouting off without any credentials or background. In the other cases, we are looking at the very real risk of major policies being based on ignorance, bias and sheer stupidity.
I know that I don’t have the right to have an opinion on a very large number of topics, and that I do have the right to an opinion on a small number. If I am asked for an opinion on something I know little or nothing about, I decline to share my ignorance. Part of Speaking Strong is knowing when to keep your mouth shut, and another part is to quit asking the ignorant for useless “opinions.” I would like to see you address this issue.
Meryl Responds
I suggest that we’re all entitled to opinions as long as 1) we know that’s what they are – opinions and not fact, 2) we are willing to be influenced by opposing opinions and 3) we consider levels of expertise.
Many are skeptical of “authorities” these days, and rightfully so. Authorities have led us down some ill-advised paths. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t listen to experts. It does mean we should also listen to our ourselves if what an authority says doesn’t seem right.
Of course it’s important to understand why things are the way they are before we assume we know better. And it often happens that people new to a situation can see things that those who are close to the problem miss.
I agree that public opinion polls are a dangerous way to create policy. And they are a great way to find out what people do and don’t know. They also are a great way to find out what people are experiencing, which often gets overlooked on the decision-maker level. We are all experts – on how the world looks to us. It’s our piece of the proverbial elephant. If we put them all together, we just might get a glimpse of the whole elephant. The danger your question references is we tend to think we are seeing the entire elephant, when in fact we just see the tail. The opinion isn’t the problem – it’s the lack of perspective on our own opinions that creates problems.
Unite and Concur Pressroom