I remember the exact moment that I realized that we were at the end of the dialogue road.
We had said everything there was to say about the issue. We had listened carefully with as much humility and curiosity as we could muster. We were tired and discouraged.
I know exactly where I was sitting when it dawned on me with clarity that this group of people that I loved wasn’t going to be able to agree on the issue that was dividing us.
Because we were each committed to being defined and connected in the process, we were trying to do two things at once:
- Say what we thought as clearly and courageously as we could while allowing (and even inviting) others to do the same, and
- Staying as relationally connected as we could amid the conflict.
In addition to our different opinions about a few controversial issues, we also had differences about how we could stay connected to each other in the face of our disagreement.
Imagine a line on which we could plot the opinions of most people in our group. Some had strong convictions on one side of the issue at hand; others had strong convictions on the other side of the issue and many were scattered between the two poles.
Now imagine another line on which we could plot the willingness of each person to cooperate with the others in the group, even those with whom they disagreed. Some believed that they could only cooperate with those who saw things the same way they did, that the stakes were too high to continue to work with people they saw as dangerously wrong. Some were willing to cooperate with everyone regardless of opinion, either because they highly valued the connection between us or because they believed that there were more convictions that held us together than that separated us. And again, most people were scattered between the two poles.
If we cross those two lines into a matrix, it might look like this:*
This is crucial to notice: There were people of all convictions in each quadrant.
This matrix doesn’t sort people according to what their convictions are but rather
1) how strongly they hold those convictions and
2) whether they are willing to cooperate across differences.
So in theory (and in reality), someone with a strong conviction “for” something and someone with a strong conviction “against” something could both be in QII based on their willingness to stay connected and remain together.
Each quadrant poses a challenge for the individuals in it and for the group:
QI: “Going along to get along” is not the same as being “defined and connected.” These people might be prone to groupthink and struggle to hold their own position. The group might get sucked into thinking that low conflict is the goal rather than achieving its mission.
QII: This group is holding the most tension and may struggle with knowing how to hold on to their own strong convictions and also cooperate with others. They may grow tired and disillusioned and shift into other quadrants.
QIII: These folks risk becoming bullies, continuing to try to win the battle over the group’s position, keeping the fight going, insisting on their own way.
QIV: The apathy and indifference in this quadrant can create a drag on the organization over time.
Over time and under pressure, every group will re-sort itself into these categories. Each of us may find ourselves in one quadrant at one time and then shifting into another.
That brings us to the work of leadership.
Disagreement and difference are inherently anxiety producing, for individuals and systems. What can thoughtful leaders consider when the road of dialogue comes to an end without any shared resolution?
- How do I typically react when I get anxious? What guiding principles have I developed about managing myself in difference and disagreement? How do I want to disrupt my autopilot reactivity? How do I want to show up now?
- Do I know what my own convictions are? Do I know what my own commitment to cooperation is? Am I being true to myself or am I letting other people call my shots?
- How can I get to a higher balcony, in order to see more of the system at a time? What patterns of reactivity can I see? How can I move beyond saying what I think about the issue (my opinions) and say what I see about how we are functioning? Who else can I invite to the balcony?
- Which quadrant am I currently in? Is this where I want to be? Which of the above pitfalls am I most likely to fall into? What will I do to maintain both my convictions and my cooperation?
Leading a group down the dialogue road is challenging. Knowing when we reach the end of the dialogue road keeps us from getting stuck and prepares us for what comes next. For a practical discussion, check out our podcast, “When Dialogue Isn’t Enough.”
*In this case, I’m describing the dynamics of an organization or a group that has work to do. If I were describing friendships or family relationships or community involvement, I would replace the word “cooperate” with “connect.”
