Thus far in the Building Bridges series, we discussed how to lay a solid foundation, construct the scaffolding for our bridge and pour concrete to meet in the middle. This week we talk about the importance of how to use your newly constructed bridge. After all, a bridge is only as good as its ability to be used safely.
If you haven’t been following along, you can catch up here. If you are new and don’t have time or energy to go back, that is OK. You should still be able to take something away from the ideas below.
1. Break down labels – To cross the bridge, you and the other party need to feel it is safe to do so. Many of our fears in crossing to the other side has to do with the labels we prescribe on the other.
An example of a label:
Imagine driving down a single-lane highway and the person in front of you is going slow and you are unable to pass. Pause for a moment and reflect on the labels might you put on that person …
Now imagine you are driving down the same highway and you are being tailgated by someone driving much faster than you. Pause for a moment and reflect on the labels might you put on that person …
Labeling others makes things easy. Whether you want to believe it or not, we are always labeling things in our environment, and this includes other people. Is our supervisor satisfied with our work? Can we trust our friends with sensitive information? Is the milk still good to drink? Our brain can only handle so much information at a time, so we find ways to make mental shortcuts to better understand our environment. One of those shortcuts is labeling. Labeling can be dangerous, however. Labeling a driver as a wild maniac for tailgating us limits our ability to be curious and to understand more about the person and the situation.
A quick (but not always easy) way to deconstruct labels is to separate the person from the behavior and then describe the behavior in the way it impacts you. This isn’t a wild maniac tailgating me, this is a person who is engaging in behavior that makes me feel unsafe. This helps us understand that the behavior is what is concerning to us and that doesn’t necessarily have to define the person. This can be similarly done with beliefs or ideas, which can allow us to be curious and seek understanding and maybe even a partnership with this person.
2. Surfacing interests – Once we are able to see the person as a human and not a behavior, belief or idea, we can start a process of understanding and problem solving. To do this, we must make interests the forefront of the conversation. In most conflicts, there are positions and interests. Positions are usually the stances or ideas we have on an issue that sometimes conflict with other people’s positions. For example, if there is a change initiative in a department, there might be people who both support the change and people who don’t see the value in the change. To surface the interests, we should inquire about where those positions come from. “What about this change works for you?” or “what about this change is concerning to you?”.
It is through these inquiry questions that we can surface interests, which are the driving force behind most positions. You might find that people have hopes, needs, fears or assumptions about what the change initiative means. People might care about department efficiency, productivity, job security or many other interests associated with change. Surfacing these interests allow you to get to the heart of the matter and engage in meaningful dialogue.
3. Reframing the question – Now that you have surfaced the interests, what do you do? Reframing the question is simple, but also hard to remember to do. You can use a simple formula, “How can we _____ (promote interests), while at the same time _____ (promote interests)?”.
Let’s look at a positional question and a reframed question for a situation where someone who supports a change initiative because they believe it will help the department stay relevant in the industry and someone is concerned about the change because they are worried it will impact efficacy.
Positional Question: “Should we change or shouldn’t we change?”
Interest-Based and Reframed Question: “How can we help the department stay relevant in the industry, while at the same time maintain or increase our efficacy?
How do you imagine these two questions might change the type of conversation? You may notice the positional question focuses on there being two sides of the problem and doesn’t take advantage of the surfaced interests. However, the interest-based, reframed question encourages people to be on the same side on a problem or issue and engage in productive and creative problem solving.
We aren’t going to always be on the same side of the body of water, overpass or canyon as others, but that doesn’t mean we can’t treat each other like humans, build a bridge and travel back and forth together.
Luke Wiesner is the UC Merced Conflict Resolution Coach , a private resource for staff members who are interested in having a partner to support workplace challenges or conflicts. This service is voluntary, and you can partner with the coach by yourself or with fellow university employees.
