As some legislators continue to work to bridge the partisanship and divisiveness that seems to pervade every institution these days, most are finding that it is an almost impossible goal, as this article helps show. Why is this the case and, more importantly, why does it matter?
Some point to gerrymandering – the drawing of political districts in a way that favors one party or another – as a major culprit. Others point to all the big money in politics that makes it nearly impossible for independent and moderate 3rd party candidates to get elected. Also, some have suggested that social media has contributed.
It seems to me that all three are to blame for creating the ‘echo chambers’ in which so many of us converse only with others who hold views similar to our own. Gerrymandering means politicians only need to put forth arguments and approaches that cater to one ideological set of beliefs. The absence of moderate and independent candidates who are serious contenders means those voices are missing from the headlines and debates. Moreover, social media allows us all to achieve the same safe and comfortable one-sidedness in our personal and social relationships.
So why does it matter? Here are some of the impacts of having to consider only one side or way of thinking about an issue:
• We begin to think that more people – maybe everyone – see things the way we do than is truly the case. Our sense of reality becomes distorted
• We begin to think that anyone who disagrees with us is wrong or stupid or crazy or must be lying, or even evil
• This makes us even more extreme in our beliefs, leads to name-calling and labeling. We stop listening to other views altogether
The sum total of these effects is what some are calling ‘tribalism,’ a growing sense that only those like me are worth caring about, that it is ok to deprive ‘others’ of all sorts of things. The impact of tribalism is, at its very worst, violence against others. Less abhorrent but just as appalling, it leads to prejudice and exclusiveness.
In its least visible but just as detrimental form, tribalism leads to the complete inability to solve our complex problems, e.g., rising sea levels or education policies, because the discussions become about who is ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ instead of finding the best answers.
Guess who loses… All of us! What can you do about it? Start to talk – and more importantly, listen – to someone with very different views from your own… without judging or trying to convince, just to understand! Start a conversation and then encourage others to do the same.
Dana Morris-Jones is the author of The Power Of Difference, available on Amazon.
There is a national initiative being launched in Maine called Revive Civility, which makes me wonder. Is civility dead or just unconscious? What has caused its demise and why does it matter? And what can we do about it?
While some may hear the term civility and think it means being polite or nice, that is not what is meant here. Rather, it is a concept that includes the willingness and ability to engage in constructive dialogue with anyone, particularly with people who hold different beliefs and opinions from your own. With that definition in mind, it’s hard to disagree with the notion that there has been a decrease of civility, whether in local and national institutions or less formal community and organizational forums. Maybe not dead, but definitely in need of resuscitation.
There seem to be many factors contributing to this. Perhaps we have lost faith that we are all in this together and that there really is something called the common good that is worth caring about. Are we so beguiled by the belief in our own ‘rightness’, that we are unable to hear and appreciate the experience of another who has walked a different path than us? Are we so fearful that, once engaged, we will lose our own beliefs or be overpowered? Or maybe we’re just so self-absorbed that we fear engagement itself.
We’ve all heard about the sometimes raucous and downright vicious exchanges that took place while our country was being formed. What was different then was that after everyone had passionately expressed their opinions, they were compelled, by the need to agree on an action, to finally work to find a consensus or at least a compromise. They were able to put country above ego.
It’s easy to put the blame on all those who model this lack of skill and bad behavior for us. If our leaders and officials can’t work together more effectively, why should we make the effort? The answer, for me, is that there is just too much at stake to wait for others to change. Each one of us has to be the change we want to see and hope to lead and inspire others.
Where can we begin the work of reviving civility? I believe it has to take place on two fronts: the will and the skill. The first is a mind shift, back to a belief that the best solutions to our problems lie in collaboration and compromise and there is rarely one right answer. That’s a tough one, probably learned only through experience and reflection. But we can begin by demonstrating the power of respectful listening, empathy and compromise every time we meet someone with whom we differ. And we can gently push back when meetings we are in are hijacked by the loudest (or rudest) voices in the room. We can demand better from our local leadership to create constructive processes and forums.
The second one is easier. Everyone can learn the skills of dialogue if they choose to. We can offer more opportunities to teach the skills, e.g., reframing problems so they are not either-or choices, active listening to understand, suspending judgment and overcoming confirmation bias, and employing collaborative and creative problem-solving methods. We can all learn and practice and model these for others – especially those who disagree with us!
Each one of us can either find or create opportunities to influence others in these ways. In my own community there has been a monthly conversation called Let’s Talk America that invites people to discuss some of the most challenging issues of the day. Another program called Makeshift Coffeehouse is creating similar opportunities across the state. Nationally, organizations like National Institute for Civic Discourse (NICD), and League of Women Voters are creating initiatives to revive civility. Courses that teach these skills are offered in every college and University.
Most powerfully, each of us can learn and practice the skills of constructive dialogue on a daily basis, in our workplaces, our communities and civic organizations, to model them for others and demonstrate that the best outcomes are the ones that work for all of us. Let’s make it a movement!
Diane Kenty wrote a similar piece for the Portland press herald that raises some other great points, you can find it here. Diane’s personal revelations are a powerful demonstration of openness, empathy and willingness to engage in constructive dialogue about difficult social issues.
Do we all have the courage to be part of a movement to revive civility?
The Heineken ad that portrays diametrically opposed individuals coming together around a common task (building a bar, of course) and ultimately having a beer, has stirred considerable controversy. Yes, it rosily suggests that we can begin to bridge some of our most painful divides (misogyny vs feminism, one-man-one-woman vs transgender right to be) simply by engaging in a project, sharing a few things about ourselves and, listening to one another.
Granted, none of these are bad things, and stranger things have happened than individuals becoming friendly without realizing they hold very different views and values. The push back comes when the ease with which it happens seems to minimize the significance of the differences or the pain that they have caused.
So ok, let’s give Heineken a thumbs up for the attempt. But let’s also get honest about what it takes to really create constructive dialogue among people who hold fundamentally and profoundly different world-views.
Here are a few tips for anyone who really wants to try it:
For more tips, approaches and skills to learn see The Power of Difference, From Conflict to Collaboration in Five Steps, by Dana Morris-Jones, available on Amazon.com
Whether working in an organization of 10 or 10,000, most of us have encountered environments that do little to minimize the impact of poorly managed conflict, often resulting in poor morale and lost productivity. How is it possible to create organizational cultures that promote collaboration instead of destructive conflict?
In his blog for the Environmental Dispute Resolution Program, Dan Adams offers us some principles that ‘support effective conflict resolution and collaborative problem solving’. It’s easy to agree that applying the four principles – 1) Offer validation and Respect, 2) Be vulnerable and authentic, 3) Be proactive instead of Reactive and 4) Ensure participation and engagement vertically and horizontally – will help. But why and how do these measures work and are they enough? And how can we actually get people to behave this way?
The Importance of Organizational Culture
In my book, The Power of Difference; From Conflict to Collaboration in Five Steps, I’ve spelled out a specific approach and set of skills that help organizations to create cultures in which everyone is enabled to resolve differences constructively. Several broad elements of organizational culture not only create the conditions for collaboration but also contribute to the success of the enterprise. As discussed in chapter 4 (titled The Power of Purpose: Creating a Culture of Alignment), these include:
It’s easy to ask people to be vulnerable and authentic, respectful and validating, but if the environment they’re in neither encourages or rewards those behaviors, it’s unlikely that anything will change. That’s why creating the right culture is so important.
There’s Science To Back It Up
Fortunately, this is not just speculation or opinion. There is good social and biological science that give these ideas more heft.
We are capable of resolving our differences and making our organizations successful, productive and pleasant places to be. We just need to apply what we know about ourselves and about organizations in general.
Read more about how to create real change in The Power of Difference: From Conflict to Collaboration in Five Steps, available from Amazon.com
Recently I had the pleasure of being interviewed on The Author Show! Take a listen and find out who I think my book will help and how!
The Author Show Interview Part 1
The Author Show Interview Part 2
The Author Show Interview Part 3
The Author Show Interview Part 4
New studies, reported in this article, confirm that there is a neurological pathway between imagination and patience. Lack of patience and impulsivity can get us in trouble when trying to resolve a conflict. For example, not feeling listened to can make an impatient person fly into a rage, never minding the likely negative consequence of that behavior.
On the other hand, being able to imagine the desired future outcome of the situation can increase one’s patience and ability to override the impulse that makes things go south. The classic example used in divorce mediation is to ask parents to imagine how they’d like things to be at their child’s wedding. Suddenly, they’re able to see the value of squashing their momentary urge to lash back in favor of a more measured approach.
In my book The Power of Difference; From Conflict to Collaboration in Five Steps, the idea of taking the long view – i.e. imagining a future outcome that is good for everyone – is a key ingredient to creating mutually satisfying solutions to complex organizational issues. In one case, a young ambitious chef locks horns with the owner of the restaurant he works in over menus and employee policies. His initial impulse is to threaten to quit if he can’t get what he wants. By imagining a future in which he will make the restaurant wildly successful in a way that benefits everyone, he is able to work through the differences with the owner in a patient and rational way.
Can you think of other situations in which imaging the future can improve one’s ability to resolve a difference?