Goodwill Hunting

Healing workplace- and lifeplace- divisions

A recent article in Harvard Law Today summarized findings by social media researchers about healing divisions in an era where people often put their trust in very different facts. One of the researchers’ chief recommendations is to never attempt to combat misinformation or disinformation with facts, because facts only lead to counterargument and getting into the weeds about sources.

We may have found ourselves going down just such a rabbit hole recently— even at Thanksgiving dinner.

For example someone says:

“That’s actually not what happened.”

To which we, or someone else responds:

“Well, I read that it was.”

“Yeah? Where’d you read it?”

“On Facebook, but it wasn’t just some random person. The guy who posted about it was there.”

“Well, he may have said he was there, but you can’t really know. Plus the account in the local newspaper contradicts what he said.”

“Why would you put more credence in some kid reporting for the local rag as opposed to an actual eye-witness?”

And so on and so on, until someone sensibly suggests, “let’s change the subject.”

Why does this kind of reasonable, logic-based approach so often fail? Because no matter how gently phrased, people read “your facts are wrong” as a judgment, proof that the person who doubts what they says believes themselves to be better informed. So no matter how well-documented the facts, or how reputable the sources, it can feel condescending. And as Maya Angelou reminded us, people may not remember what we said, but they always remember how we made them feel.

It’s no surprise, then, that the Harvard researchers found that demonstrating empathy and understanding is a far more effective way to communicate and build relationships with people who hold opposing views.

And building relationships with those who see the world differently than we do is more important than ever right now, when divisions are apt to be fierce and opinions entrenched. This is true in our neighborhoods and communities, true in our families, and true in our workplaces. Which is why developing our empathic skills– our ability to walk in one anothers’ shoes– is essential if we want to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

I find the principle from my own work that best applies here is giving others the benefit of our good will. This is quite different than giving others the benefit of the doubt, as the usual phrase has it. It’s more generous, more difficult, warmer, and subtler. And it starts with telling ourselves a positive story.

In the workshops and master classes I do based on my book Rising Together, I share a simple exercise for applying this principle at work. Participants start by reflecting on an incident that irritated them: the colleague who failed to give them credit for work they’d done, the peer who poached the mentor they’d wanted to work with, the teammate who’d criticized their suggestion during a blue sky session when everyone had been asked to listen rather than to judge.

Next, participants describe to the person sitting next to them how they interpreted these incidents: what story they told themselves about what happened and why. After a few volunteers have shared these narratives, I ask everyone to rewrite their story, describing what the person who annoyed them did in positive terms.

For example:

Jim may not have known that I developed that data on customer reaction. I’m glad he thought highly of my research.

or

It’s probably not surprising that Laura also saw Celeste as a potential mentor. She and I have a lot in common.

or

I’m not sure Maurizio knew it was supposed to be a blue sky meeting because he came in late. He was probably was trying to be helpful by giving me constructive criticism.

These simple rewrites about the intentions of the credit stealer, the mentor poacher and the public critic provide practice in giving others the benefit of our good will. Instead of buying into our own scripts, we decline to assume that our feelings reflect the facts of what happened, and shift our narrative in a way that allows us to draw a more generous conclusion.

It doesn’t matter if we actually believe our new interpretation, or whether it is true. Even if we don’t and it’s not, the technique is still effective because it allows us to give a person we have been resenting the benefit of our good will. And doing so gives us a positive way to move forward, rather than remaining stuck in grievance or mistrust.

I believe a similar technique could be useful in a range of situations during this period of division and dissentian. Whenever we hear ourselves identifying someone else as delusional, in the tank, or captive of dubious sources, we simply choose to rewrite our script. “I know she and I strongly disagree agree on a few issues that are really important to me, but she’s the kind of neighbor I would trust picking up my kids after school. I know she has a good heart.”

This kind of narrative helps us to cultivate the kind of empathy and understanding recommended by the researchers cited in the Harvard Law study as most effective for bridging divides. It enables us to focus on what we have in common with others, rather than what we disagree on.

When we give others the benefit of our good will, we perform the essential work of healing.

Like what you’re reading? Click here to order my most recent book Rising Together, or How Women Rise, both are available from Amazon or from your favorite bookseller.