Shankar Vedantam states that “large numbers of people on both sides claim to know the motives of people who disagree with them.” Vedantam’s column, “Department of Human Behavior,” in The Washington Post, provides insights that can help those who want to lead change effectively.

In the 3/12/07 column, “Disagree About Iraq? You’re Not Just Wrong – You’re Evil” he cites research that shows that when we feel strongly about something, we think we know why people on the other side of the issue believe what they do. And we “know” that those positions are almost always ill-informed, sinister, or stupid.

He writes, “When was the last time you heard people say that those who disagree with them on the Iraq War are well-meaning, smart, informed, and thoughtful?”

He quotes Glenn D. Reeder, a social psychologist, “We are really bad about putting ourselves in other people’s places and looking at the world the way they look at it . . . .We find it difficult to grant that other people come to their conclusions in good faith if they reach a conclusion that is different than ours.”

We just assume that those who disagree with us and our ideas are acting in bad faith – and that creates barriers to effective communication. 

These untested assumptions hinders the possibility of finding common ground. We “know” that they are up to no good. .  . or lack the capacity to understand the brilliance of our ideas. .  .or just don’t care like we do. . . and so on.   

I’ve worked with senior managers who were certain that the unions would block their every move because union members were tied to 1930s labor movement thinking.  I’d talk to the union members who “knew” that the company leaders didn’t care. They believed that these managers weren’t invested  in this change and would find another job within the company once the project failed. These untested beliefs made it almost impossible for the two sides to work together on ways to keep the plant open.  

In my book, Beyond the Wall of Resistance, I wrote about Common Ground Network for Life and Choice. This organization would help people find the common ground in the abortion issue. Some would say there is no common ground on this issue. But, in many cities people identified many major points of common concern such as the number of unwanted teenage pregnancies, the epidemic use of drug use among the young, the welfare of children, and the status of women in their communities. And, in some cases, “warring groups” came together to work on some of these critical issues.

If it is possible to find common ground in a disagreement as polarizing and contentious as this, then surely it must be possible inside large organizations.

Here is what made these sessions work.

• The people from Common Ground Network were invited by both sides – so they were never seen as the stooges of one side or the other.
• The purpose of these meetings was to engage in dialogue to explore if there was common ground. They told people that there would be no decision-making during these sessions. This allowed people to listen more easily, as opposed to only half-listening as they pushed for acceptance of their own ideas.
• Everything occurred in groups of four. In larger groups, people tended to talk in ways that made them look good in the eyes of their peers. Small groups were more intimate and encouraged more open conversation.
• Two people in each four-person group were given training in facilitation in order to keep the conversations moving.
• They started with easy questions to warm people up, such as, “Why did you come today?”
• Then the questions got harder. For example, they might ask, “How did you come to believe what you believe about abortion?” rather than “What’s your position?” The latter question calls for a speech. The first questions invites self-disclosure. Often these stories came from personal pain, and people on the other side could relate to the human behind the story. These responses often were turning points in the meeting.

Dealing with these deeply-seated assumptions and beliefs is difficult, but not impossible. We can all learn from the good work of this Network. I wish you well.