Position vs. Interest
Getting to the Heart of Polarized Thinking
A few weeks ago, I had the honor of facilitating a discussion as part of TEDxBreckenridge – part of the wildly popular TED Conference that offers a platform to people who have ideas that evolve our thinking and the way we view the world. TED is all about creating a community where people can discuss big, complex concepts and come together to figure out how to make the world a better place for everyone.
In short – it’s a hotbox for collaboration and inspiration, reflective of its new tagline, “Ideas Change Everything”.
At TEDxBreckenridge, we were fortunate to gain access to the TED2024 Conference talks prior to them being shared publicly. We curated 8 of the 80+ talks from the larger conference to premier with our local audience. Between talks we engaged in intellectual and heartfelt conversation that tied the messages to our beloved mountain community.
The main theme of the evening focused on the topic of polarization, something most, if not all, of us are experiencing in our world today – that thing that happens when one group of people is committed to a particular belief or position, and another group is committed to another perspective, with neither “side” being willing to consider an alternative point of view. The talks included heartwrenching conversations between Palestinians and Israelis, analyses of how our current political systems lend to polarization across the globe, and much more.
Needless to say, it was a thought-provoking, enriching experience for everyone – which is the whole point!
While polarization is often connected to politics and topics in the media, it’s a concept that’s readily found in all areas of life and at varying degrees. To demonstrate this, during our discussion, I led the fifty-or-so participants through an exercise of identifying where polarization might be found in our own community of Summit County, Colorado. While thankfully, we are not at war with each other, we quickly listed about 20 polarizing topics, some as seemingly harmless as how we use common trails to more hot-button topics like zoning laws, housing, and healthcare.
To experience the process of getting to the root of an issue and finding common interests rather than remaining stuck in polarizing positions, we chose one of those topics to workshop: the use of e-bikes on our trails.
A Case Study in Polarization
The seemingly inert topic of e-bikes – those motorized bicycles that can be seen in parks, neighborhoods, or on city street corners for rent these days – turned out to be excellent fodder for community conversation. But perhaps not for the reason you might think.
The decision of whether e-bikes should or should not be allowed on trails was one that some felt undecided on while others were adamantly for or against. I asked people to move to one side of the room or the other as it related to where they landed on the topic. While the majority of the people in the room remained somewhere in the center, about 20% were split equally on either side. And this is what’s so fascinating – though the majority of folks were in the middle of the room, undecided, it was the dichotomy of the two smaller, opposing groups that had the loudest voices, and would have normally created conflict for all.
Don’t we see this play out all the time in politics (and companies and communities, for that matter)? Those with the loudest voices can oftentimes overshadow the reality of a majority that doesn’t feel as strongly about a topic; so even when there are just a few people disagreeing over something, the chaos of that disagreement can be so loud that it drowns out all other voices, making it seem as though everyone is divided, when it’s really a small subset that is.
And this is where the power of discussion comes in.
One of the great things about a platform like TEDxBreckenridge is that it creates space for people to dig into topics, listen, learn from one another, and consider new pathways. So that’s exactly what we did. We facilitated a group discussion that invited all voices, asking them to express their deeper desires that e-bikes on or off trails might represent. It was not an exercise in trying to convince the other side, or to prove whether one person’s thoughts were “right” or “wrong”. Moreso, it was an exercise to express one’s deeper motivation and to listen to each other. And what we discovered when we delved a bit deeper was that the ‘interests’ of those most divided on the topic did not, in fact, appear to really be about e-bikes after all; it was about what people thought having or not having e-bikes on their trails would afford them.
We quickly learned that those who were against e-bikes on trails prioritized safety, and feared that e-bikes posed a risk to their community because they might cause people harm. On the other hand, those for e-bikes were largely interested in access and inclusion, as e-bikes afforded them a means of mobility that regular bikes or other methods of using the trails did not. Meanwhile, those who had remained undecided on the topic were able to learn more about it by being included in the open dialogue. Between the two divided groups, it essentially boiled down to this: some of the group valued safety, while others valued inclusion. (Of course, there are other interests such as resources, environment, and habitat that could play into such a topic, but these were the two that were expressed during this exercise.)
Once we realized this, we were able to ask a new question: “Should we have e-bikes or not?” turned into, “How might we prioritize safety on the trails while also maximizing inclusion?” By changing the question, we were able to get past the black-and-white positions of ‘e-bikes vs. no e-bikes’, and get to the root of our community’s true interests instead.
While the exercise was not meant to actually get to a solution, but rather to experience getting to root motivations and values, this new question in hand might just allow us to find a solution that serves the interests of everyone while also supporting a community where all are seen and heard.
BONUS – we were able to practice a new way of evolving together.
Position vs. Interest
This activity revealed two really interesting things, I think: one is how powerful the appearance of division can be for a wider group due to a loud minority; the other is how quickly even a small group of people can be divided by taking separate stances on something, whether that thing is objectively important to their overall efforts or not. The reason for that, I’ve learned, is that most people are focusing on their positions rather than their interests.
I like to describe position as the outer shell – the decision you’ve made or the belief you hold, often because you believe that this decision or belief will serve you in some way. Your interests, on the other hand, is the meat of what you actually want; it’s the underlying thing that will put your heart at ease. In the case of the divided minority of the TEDxBreckenridge group, the positions were either “e-bikes” or “no e-bikes”, and the interests were either “inclusion” or “safety”.
Where most human beings get into conflict is when we confuse the two, thinking that the outcome of something must reflect our positions – that we must indeed ensure there are no e-bikes on our trails – in order to serve our interests (in this case, safety).
In truth, though, when we look at how communities actually work, the opposite is true, and the workplace is an excellent example of this. When we create space for people to look past their positions, to peel back the layers and understand what their true interests are, we find that much more often than not, there are options that serve all interests; in the case of our TEDxBreckenridge group – we find that we can ensure people are safe and included. The issue is simply that our minds are so preoccupied with serving our own positions – and thus, in their own way, watching out for us – that we aren’t able to see alternative decisions that might serve multiple interests.
In this way, our minds sometimes tell us a story that isn’t actually true.
The Stories We Tell
When we work with teams who are on great missions, one of the threats to their success is often lack of unity – the absence of a shared goal that revolves around a compelling WHY. And while so many things contribute to healthy teams and communities, one thing that is imperative is individuals having the ability to see beyond the surface to the greater shared purpose.
In short, when people can rally around shared interests, and act in ways that reflect those, it creates a foundation that is both primed for big impact and resilient to challenges or complications that may arise as priorities change and new pressures are introduced.
It stands to reason, then, that one of the biggest challenges facing any group is when people are divided and trust is lost.
Dave Isay, the founder of the radically popular non-profit, StoryCorps – a platform that has highlighted the stories of everyday people for over 20 years now and shares them through a weekly broadcast on NPR – has unwittingly studied the effects of what happens when trust is lost through a tangential project called One Small Step. This newer effort uses the power of story in a different way; specifically, it creates a space for people of differing political views to have open and honest conversations. The radical thing, though, is that participants aren’t asked to discuss their political views during these conversations, as different as they might seem on the surface. Instead, they focus on getting to know each other as people – people who have careers and ambitions, kids they want the best for, families they love deeply, and communities they want to see thrive and prosper.
And here is what is so very impactful about how this project works – by asking participants to get to know each other on a level that they can all relate to (as humans muddling through everyday struggles), they are able to understand each others’ basic interests better. And if you remember, our interests are the things that really matter to us, and that are going to make the most impact on our overall happiness. When people are polarized completely, blinded by the differences in their positions, they forget to think of each other as people with interests that likely mirror their own, and their minds start to label those on the opposite ‘side’ as a threat – as people wholly different from them.
And this is supremely dangerous; because when you forget to consider peoples’ interests and feel your own interests are being threatened, you are much more likely to fight tooth-and-nail for your own position. You’re less likely to look for other solutions or compromise of any kind, and what’s more, you’re less likely to even consider that those other solutions or compromises even exist.
Choosing Values Over Fear
When our team is working with clients, we take the time to get to know their teams inside and out so that we can come up with a personalized plan of action to get them to where they want to be. And though every team is different, one thing we’ve found to be absolutely universal across industries and any demographic you can think of… is fear.
Fear is everywhere; it’s a natural response to life, and it’s something that’s been built into us as a species in order to support our survival. It’s something that has a role and purpose…and in some cases, it can be a very powerful motivator.
But though it’s a part of all of our lives, it is not something that should be left unchecked. And when we act towards others from a place of defending our positions, we are often acting from a place of unchecked fear – from a place that says “if this particular thing I’ve chosen or believe does not prevail, something bad will happen”.
And if you’ve ever led anyone in your life, even just yourself, you likely know that making decisions based on fear doesn’t often end well.
When we take action based on our interests, though, and the interests of others, we are empowered to make decisions based on our values. Our values are the things that guide us – the things that define the best versions of ourselves. Things like honesty, integrity, collaboration, teamwork, and resilience.
When we choose to fight for our positions instead of our interests, therefore, we are making a choice to give into fear – to give into those things that scare us most – instead of living according to the things we say are most important to us.
As we move forward in our organizations, teams, and beyond in the greater world, it’s vital that we remember the difference between the two, and all that rests on which we choose to be moved by. Because when we teach people to look for the interests in a situation from the beginning, not only are they leaning on and reinforcing the values that keep your team going strong, but they’re reinforcing the very ideas of possibility and hope – the idea that there are solutions and opportunities and unknown paths out there that might just serve everyone – if only we are brave enough, through open dialogue and collaboration, to find them.
If you enjoyed this article and want to dive into similar resources, we invite you to take a look at the following:
Integrated Growth has been developing leaders, mobilizing teams, and transforming organizations since 1998. Founded by Gretchen Reid, their team of highly skilled consultants and executive coaches are known for building award winning leadership development programs, facilitating strategic planning and team development initiatives, and providing executive coaching to help you achieve your greatest mission. We invite you to schedule a free consultation or visit www.integratedgrowth.com for more information.
AUTHOR – Gretchen Reid is the Founder and Chief Change and Leadership Architect for Integrated Growth. She has spent over 25 years coaching leaders and creating award-winning Leadership and Talent Development Programs, directly contributing to multiple awards for her clients, including Fast Company’s 50 Most Innovative Companies, Forbes America’s Best Employers List, Forbes Best Employer for Diversity, and ASTD BEST. She is an Adjunct Professor of Change Management in the Strategic HR Masters Program, Denver University, University College. (MS, Career and Human Resource Development, Rochester Institute of Technology, BA, Psychology & Business Management, University of Rochester)