Office politics gets heated in a new way

A friend of mine recently told me about a workplace conflict over politics that she had with an employee of hers. She also relayed that she’d helped resolve two other work-related conflicts between coworkers successfully, although they were stressful occurrences. But the skills she used for those situations went out the window when it came to her own conflict. Later, she sent her employee an email saying they should only talk about old movies, because they can agree on those.

Why did she get into this disagreement when she’s normally a great negotiator? Because her emotions were involved. She couldn’t detach. The conversation became about what she believed and what he believed — and that’s touchy territory!

When I started trying to make a suggestion to listen, she told me that wouldn’t work. This person takes a long time to say everything, and they don’t have time for that at work. Plus, he has a script he’s spouting.

One of the contributing factors to this conflict (and fractured relationships all over the place) is that our news sources are politically polarized and they’re reporting different facts. (We can’t even agree on facts!) One news source says our cities are burning, while people on the ground disagree. One news source reports the latest tell-all book, and others ignore it so their viewers don’t even know it exists, never mind what it says.

So, what can anyone do in this situation? Just talk about old movies and sports? That may preserve the relationship, but that approach has cracks in it, and it results in people  feel like they can’t be themselves.

I have a suggestion. Try turning the conversation so it becomes about news sources and how trustworthy they are. One of your objectives should be to help the other person off their script and to slow down their thinking. This is effective because one of the causes of our political polarization is a tendency towards what is called a “high need for cognitive closure.” Let me translate that — it means making a snap judgement. But research has shown that if you can engage people deeply in a conversation that makes someone think, you circumvent that tendency and they may change their mind. And, notably that change is durable; it isn’t just for the length of the conversation. It doesn’t always happen, but it does happen sometimes. And that’s better than what we’re doing now, yelling and blocking people or avoiding topics and walking on eggshells.

By staying in the relationship and talking about the issues that matter in a civil way, the relationship matures, and people change. We can heal our nation if we can learn to talk to each other in ways that help us understand each other better.

So how would that work if you find yourself in a situation like my friend? First, as always, I suggest you start making it clear that you value the relationship by stating that and letting them know you want to try something different in conversation to help you remain civil and build the relationship. Say something like, I know we disagree on a lot of things, and I wonder if it has something to do with the different way we get news. I’d like to learn more about why you choose to get your news from the sources that you do. You can ask some of the questions below. Feel free to use as many of them as you feel are useful and to add your own:

·       What do you get your news/what are your news sources? How long have you used them? Have they changed over time? Have you ever used other sources? What were they and why did you stop?

·       Who are your favorite people on that source? Why? Do you agree with everything they say? Does anything bother you about them? What is it?

·       Do you find them trustworthy? How do you know they’re trustworthy?

·       Do you ever check to see if what they say is true or if it’s the same as what’s being reported in other places?

·       Do you ever think about what your source’s agenda is? Or what their bias is? (We all have bias; recognizing it is the trick.) What are they trying to accomplish? Is it ratings or eyeballs, or is it just being provocative? Are they trying to provoke outrage and selecting new items that do that?

Don’t just make this a quiz. Chime in with your own experience and your own journey. If you can refrain from condemning the other person’s news source and talk about your own evolution, perhaps how you discovered that something you thought was true turned out not to be, it can open up the conversation and possibly restore the relationship. This needs to be a conversation, not a lecture.

By approaching it this way, you can change the conversation, and maybe — just maybe — mend the relationship. At the very least, you’ll be talking in a different, improved way.