How often have you found yourself in discussions or arguments where you and the other party were both convicted in their position, and there was no way to move forward? Perhaps you simply “agreed to disagree,” which seems positive but usually leaves each person feeling frustrated.
In 2022, The Tipping Point and Outliers author Malcolm Gladwell moderated a panel discussion at MIT Sloan’s annual Sports Analytics Conference, titled Transgender Athletes: A Conversation on Data and Participation Policy. The subject of the inclusion of transgender athletes in gendered sports is a touchpoint for many, and, of course, a personal pain point for trans athletes themselves, but the panel itself played out how one might expect, and did not make major headlines.
What did make headlines was Gladwell reflecting on the panel three years later, as a guest on the podcast The Real Science of Sport – hosted by one of the anti-participation panelists, Ross Tucker – in which he said he was “ashamed” of his own performance during the panel discussion, and that he thought 95% of the audience agreed with Tucker’s position but would not admit to it. Gladwell could probably have considered his words more carefully during this podcast, because he was then pilloried by advocates on both sides of the discussion – some saying he did not apologize enough, and others saying he was transphobic.
In later interviews, when asked about his reflections, he gave a more full and nuanced explanation, which (putting aside this specific example of Malcolm Gladwell and trans athletes) has a helpful broader application. As he explains it, at one point in the panel discussion, Joanna Harper (one of the pro-participation advocates) said to Ross Harper, “‘Ross, you have to let us win.’ And what she meant was, she was conceding the point that trans women have a genetic advantage over biological women. But what she was saying was, that’s not the issue here… because they’re both after different things. One side are people who are trying to protect the purity of women’s support, as they would say, and the other side is someone who’s trying to make a human rights argument about a disadvantaged group. It’s two arguments. They’re never, ever going to meet. And in that moment when she said that, it crystallized why this was an impossible problem to resolve… We could have used this to explain the fact that this is an irresolvable argument, [but] I don’t say anything.” [Emphasis added] This last part – not saying anything – is what Gladwell goes on to explain he feels ashamed of, and as someone who has moderated panels, it is hard to balance the role of a moderator with any commentary that might benefit the group.
I wonder how often we are arguing and not realizing that we’re arguing about different things? If the value that we are holding as important is not in fact being disrespected or shot down by the other person; they are just arguing in favor of a different value. And perhaps we’re completely missing what they see as important, just as they seem to be doing with us?
How might this be helpful with our team this week?
This Week’s Tips:
In any heated discussion, disagreement, or argument, try these steps:
- Take a step back and ask what values are important for each stakeholder. If you each answer with the same values, drill down deeper until it’s clear what the differences are in your value positions. Ironically, uncovering the different value positions actually helps you find common ground from which to move forward.
- Find or create ways to honor and respect the value positions held by others. This doesn’t need to come at the cost of your own value position. In the trans athlete example above, Gladwell suggests that, “if you’re someone who thinks that trans women should not participate in the female category… be an advocate for all other aspects of the trans agenda. Say, ‘Okay, I know that this is something that means a lot to you. I’m not going to back you on this, but I promise you I’ll back you on everything else.’ And the flip side is also true… If you are someone who wants that kind of participation, go out of your way to acknowledge that you’re asking [them] to give up something here, and go, ‘I will bend over backwards to make that sacrifice easier for you.'” Along the way, you may find some creative, collaborative solutions. For example, the eighteen weight classes in boxing were not always in place; they were introduced over time to accommodate a wider range of participants. Finding new ways forward could also come from ‘role switching’ – asking what you would do if their value was of the utmost importance to you.
- Check in over time to see how each stakeholder is feeling with the path forward and course correct if necessary. It would be easy to pretend that all tension would disappear after the initial conversation(s), but of course this is not the reality. Be proactive about checking in and collaborating on adjustments needed over time.
Try these out this week, and let us know how it goes – we’d love to hear from you.
As always, you can subscribe to our feed here, or sign up for our weekly newsletter to get these articles directly in your inbox.
Building Bridges Leadership 