How to have “healthy” political disagreements in the workplace

With the 2024 election just weeks away, we’re examining corporate-level political polarization in America as part of our Office Politics series.

We’ve already explored some tools that can help employees who disagree about policies and politics have civil conversations. Now we’re looking at how we can teach the technology to defuse polarized workplaces. Michael Reszler is a program director at the Aspen Institute, which runs a project called The Better Arguments Project. The initiative teaches healthier ways to resolve disagreements in the workplace or community.

Reszler spoke with Marketplace Morning Report host David Brancaccio, and the following is an edited transcript of their conversation.

David Brancaccio: In many cases we are talking about deeply rooted values. These values ​​make us who we are, and within these values ​​there are boundaries that we will not cross. But have you and your team found a way to have some kind of dialogue – even if you aren’t convinced by the other side?

Michael Reszler: Too often the way forward has been, “We just all have to agree.” The challenge is giving people the opportunity to actually bring their differences to the table. And so Better Arguments is a set of techniques and methods for having conversations where people can talk openly and honestly about what they believe without focusing on winning the debate. If you come into a discussion and the intention is, “I’m going to win this debate,” then you’re already losing one of the great powers of debate and discussion, which is the enlightenment that helps figure out how profound the issue is. And so Better Arguments just helps you find a way to have those conversations.

Brancaccio: It’s a tough question, Mike, but what’s in it for the contestant if they’re not in it for the euphoria of victory? What do you get from a process that involves listening deeper and getting a sense of where people are coming from?

Reszler: What you get from this is the opportunity to actually contribute to solving major problems in a democratic republic. The ability to come together and resolve differences and overcome the differences is essential.

Brancaccio: From the conservative side you hear sentences like: They want to “own the liberals”, i.e. the liberals. Or on the other hand: “We must destroy the Make America Great Again movement,” as Donald Trump defines it. And you’re saying that if the goal is to make society a better place, to make progress, then you shouldn’t put things that way.

Reszler: No. I mean, it’s right in the preamble to the Constitution, right? We work for a common good. And throughout American history, compromise has been recognized: When there are free individuals who can all contribute to the government, compromise must be made. And we live in a world today where many people see compromise as hypocrisy. I think that in a democracy we have lost the ability to compromise. And I just want to mention that for the last 80 years we’ve been talking constantly about going to war with ourselves: war on crime, war on poverty, war on drugs. And we forget that when you go to war within a country, the enemy is always the people who are our fellow citizens. And that rhetoric, I think, has shaped our approach to disagreement.

Brancaccio: And at work you could have a conflict with your colleagues. And I understand why communities don’t want their PTA meetings or their city council meetings to turn into fistfights, for example. But tell me, some companies have recognized this as a problem that needs to be addressed within their own ranks, within the company?

Reszler: The old idea that people checked their beliefs, their values, and everything about themselves at the door when they punched in the clock, and then somehow picked them up again when they punched in, has never come true. And I think it’s particularly untrue today. By focusing on common things and common assets in your company, you can help create focus. But the other reason you want to have a place where people can disagree, where people can think outside the box, where people can challenge ideas, is so you can create an entrepreneurial place where new ideas can be challenged may be provided. Second, because many organizations try to help communities solve big problems, they encounter people who genuinely disagree with their approaches to such situations. You need a process for your business and the customers, the communities you want to serve, to work together.

Brancaccio: However, give me a taste of the process – how Better Arguments would approach this with a group.

Reszler: So the first thing is, no matter what discussion or debate you have, that debate always has three parts: The first is to understand the history of the debate. The second option is to be aware of what you believe, to be aware of the other side, to practice some humility and emotional intelligence. And third, recognize the power in every situation. Some people will have more power than others. Be aware of these dynamics, pay attention to who is speaking, who is not speaking, etc. When you become aware of these situations, we are talking about not being able to win. This isn’t about rewarding friends and defeating enemies. It’s about finding solutions that we can all share. But to achieve that, you have to practice humility. You have to be open and honest and listen carefully. Being open and honest doesn’t mean you have to give up your values. This doesn’t mean you have to give up your beliefs, but it does recognize that in a democracy nothing changes if everyone simply says, “I’m immobile.”