Comparing Lists
The first step when engaging this strategy involves a “cooling off” period of time for both parties to the disagreement and a “homework” assignment that both are to complete. The assignment involves preparing a list of the “reasons” why each person believes that their version of “reality” is valid. In addition, there is some reframing to take place. Each person is to prepare a list (usually much shorter) on which any “reasons” why the other person’s viewpoint might be “valid” or at least “not easily dismissed.” There is an additional task to be completed. Each person is to prepare a third list which is their prediction regarding what will be on the other person’s two lists (including what they think the other person will place on their “opponent’s” list.
The two parties now come together after their time of “cooling off” and “reflecting.” They compare their lists and focus on where they are “surprised” (often pleasantly) and where they are in agreement. Together they now prepare an “integrated” list contains elements from both lists. While they might find themselves still in disagreement, they are likely to find that they together have generated some new information and may have even generated a new shared perspective that can guide them in moving forward on the issue being addressed—such as review of the new housing policy.
What if They are Right!
The second strategy is particularly appropriate if there is considerable emotion invested in the version of reality held by both parties. This strategy involves addressing a challenging question: “what if your “opponent” is accurate? What are the implications.” As one of the parties begins to address the matter of implications then their fears are likely to emerge along with other emotions that might be swirling around the two opposing viewpoints.
Exaggerated negative outcomes (related to catastrophic thinking) often are articulated and are subject to the “cold hard reality” of slow, reflective thinking (often facilitated by a mediator). While the revelation of emotion-laded beliefs and fears can be quite embarrassing, there can also be a moment of “relief” – especially when these fears are being revealed by both parties. There can even be a bit of laughter and self-humor as both parties try to move beyond their fearful envisioning to find a place where they can both find comfort in the facts. This is usually somewhere between their polarized positions.
Reflective Inquiry
The third strategy requires more energy and attention on the part of both parties. It is particularly appropriate if the information being debated is multi-tiered and filled with contradiction. It is also appropriate if decisions made regarding the validity and application of the information has brought impact.
Careful engagement in this strategy often requires a third party—serving as a coach to those who are in disagreement regarding important information (“facts”). Specifically, I am introducing the processes of reflective inquiry—initially championed by Donald Schön (1983) and later refined by Peter Senge (1990).
