Reading Difficult Conversations, it is apparent that navigating differences in opinion is difficult. People perceive situations differently and these divergent perceptions require divergent responses. Letting go of the bottom line result of these perceptions and responses, and examining the subjective factors and processes underlying the differences requires respect, patience and philosophical flexibility. It is unsurprising that constructive conversation often fails to occur.

To make matters worse — and more interesting — I do not believe most conflicts have this symmetrical opinion versus opinion structure. I believe the deeper disagreements are radically asymmetrical, and take the form of formed opinion versus inchoate intuition.

Opinion-versus-opinion as a norm leads to the systematic advantaging of conventional (and non-innovative) thinking. One person has a positive plan and the other has only criticisms of things other people have come up with. The former is ready to get to work and start producing work products while the other is in “analysis paralysis” lost in abstract concepts.

The tactic employed at this point is to impose a line of questioning that reinforces the assumption that conflicts are necessarily between opinion and opinion: “OK, then. You think my opinion is inadequate. Do you have something better?” Or another way this is stated: “Don’t come to me with problems. Come to me with solutions.” The dissenter is framed as a mere malcontent, content to criticize other people’s ideas, but unable or unwilling to advance one of their own.

The implication of all this is that groups cannot explore questions together. It is up to the isolated individual to produce an alternative. In other words, critique and dialogue is ruled out on principle. (This tactic is often used by husbands on  wives to shut down discussion. Because this type of disagreement is difficult to conceptualize — especially in the heat of argument — the wife will leave with the feeling she has been treated unjustly, but in a way she cannot explain. If she raises further objections it only leads to more of the same: “You don’t have a point.” Further, focusing attention on the way the discussion is happening, rather than on the content of the discussion, can be taken as changing the subject from the factual matter at hand, and making things personal and subjective. For whatever reason, women seem more inclined to come to a shared understanding before taking action, where men tend to fight for dominance in order to personally determine the course of action.)

And things are such in many organizations that the positive something always overrides the negative possibility — that is, the group automatically seizes on the first viable concrete option that appears, with the faith that dissatisfaction is in details that can be ironed out. And because this is the only way things are permitted to happen, there is no counter-example available to show the relative ease of proceeding according to a clear vision, versus a muddled attempt to construct a vision piecemeal.

The key to resolving this problem is raising the conflict from the level of opinion versus opinion to the level of method vs method. Of course, the former, who already holds an opinion will argue that no argument is necessary since the group already knows what it ought to do (a.k.a. has an opinion to work from), but at least now the conflict is framed in more positive and symmetrical terms.