Learning to “Lean In” to Disagreement

“I should've known the world was wide enough for both Hamilton and me.”

Aaron Burr in Hamilton

Lately, I’ve been considering whether I should I decline invitations from people who have different views than I do. It’s not because I don’t want to be around them – in fact, it’s quite the opposite. I’m fascinated with group dynamics and how people navigate disagreement to reach consensus. The reason I’ve even considered this is because my presence seems to make people with different views uncomfortable. I’m a “pleaser” by nature, and I don’t want to make people feel uncomfortable.

For most of my adult life, the people in my family’s social circle had vastly different views on virtually every issue than I did. When derogatory remarks about someone from a marginalized population or an issue of social justice were made, the individuals would look at me and make a joke about me being the “token liberal.” For many years, I wouldn’t say anything. I would just smile begrudgingly.

That’s not the case anymore. These days, I dispute comments that I feel are disrespectful and hurtful. And, even though I try to have respectful dialogue, I’m finding that these same individuals seem to have difficulty with my disagreement.

As I mentioned earlier, I am fascinated by group dynamics. This fascination was accelerated after I participated on my first State Technical Assessment Team (STAT) visit with the Safe States Alliance. The Safe States Alliance is a professional association of individuals who work in the injury and violence prevention field. The STAT visit is a service offered by Safe States to injury and violence prevention programs within state health departments. If a state injury program makes a formal request for a STAT visit, Safe States will assemble a voluntary team to travel to the requesting state to conduct a point-in-time assessment of the program and prepare a report, which makes recommendations to enhance activities. Each team member is assigned a section of the report to prepare.

STAT visits can be tough. The length of the visit has ranged from 4 to 5 days. The days and evenings are long, with the team working 14+ hours every day. In its current iteration, the team members spend the first two days of the visit conducting back-to-back interviews with partners and stakeholders the state program staff have invited to be interviewed. After the interviews, team members travel back to the hotel and spend more time together debriefing what was learned in the interviews. After the debriefing sessions, team members adjourn to their hotel rooms to write their sections of the report. On the third day, the team assembles in a conference room at the hotel to read and edit each section of the report to make it a cohesive document with sound and feasible recommendations.

There is typically a mixture of individuals on the team from various generations and various stages of their careers. As I wrote in my August 8, 2018 entry “I’m Still Learning,” 72 hours into a STAT visit, the team members can become tired and “punchy.” It’s at that time that I’m most intrigued and amazed by group dynamics. More often than not when the STAT members are tired, they will coalesce, push on, and complete the task at hand in a respectful manner. At the end of a STAT visit, I’m exhausted, yet energized.

There were a couple of instances during the past week when I watched similar group dynamics unfold in a way that also invigorated me.

The first instance was when the strategy team of the Texas Injury Prevention Leadership Collaborative met in Austin for our annual planning meeting. This is a group whose values are grounded in:

• Supporting the inherent value of each individual and believing in the collective wisdom of the group with purpose and passion;

• Creating safe spaces for discovery by striving to stimulate and influence one another by strengthening each member and their contribution;

• Accepting the responsibility to voice our opinions while supporting each other’s right to authenticity, creativity and learning; and

• Believing in collaboration and cooperative interaction to find common ground to produce meaningful outcomes.

When I am tired and feeling beaten down by the current state of discourse, I know that I can always find solace in spending time with this group of people. Our meeting last week was no exception. We don’t always agree. But, we have created safe spaces for disagreement, where our team members “lean in” and listen to hard conversations. This includes me. At one point during our meeting, one of my colleagues looked at me and shared a situation when I had unintentionally been complicit in making people feel excluded. Because of the trust we have generated, I was able to hear her words with a learning mindset instead of getting defensive. Instead of trying to figure out how to refute what she said, I was immediately able to see how my actions could have been perceived. Even when we have difficulty articulating perfectly, we still communicate respectfully. In doing so, we have developed the skillset to work through tension and discover new ideas and opportunities. I am so proud of this group and grateful to be a part of it.

The other instance this week came during an Action Inquiry Group call, when I witnessed the group members sit with confusion around a topic and talk through that confusion. As one of the facilitators of the group said, we often are uncomfortable with “not knowing” and overwhelmed with complexity. The kneejerk reaction is to either defer to an “expert” to come in and solve the problem. Or, we rely on our own cognitive bias to find a simple solution. Here’s the thing about complexity – it’s complex, not simple! Through our Inquiry group, we are learning how to notice and pay attention to the intangible things. As a result, we are open to exploring different ideas. By doing this, we were able to overcome the confusion on our call and come to a decision that we all liked.

In her book, Unlocking Leadership Mindtraps: How to Thrive in Complexity, Jennifer Garvey Berger said, “In times that are uncertain and changing fast, too much agreement, like too much polarization, is a problem.” She said that while too much agreement is pleasant, it makes us follow a narrow path rather than expanding our solution space, which makes it harder to create and pursue a wide span of options that will prepare us for the demands of an uncertain future. Complex situations require diversity of experience, approach and ideas. Berger encourages us to learn how to harness conflict rather than push it away.

Touché, Berger. I think I always knew segregation wasn’t the solution!