We live in a highly interconnected world in which people from all walks of life interact with each other on a daily basis. This unavoidable reality of modern life creates many amazing opportunities, including for greater creativity and innovation. However, it can be difficult to navigate if we don’t have skills for productively working through our differences.
I believe our lack of skills for navigating difference is a key reason we’re seeing such high levels of polarization and divisiveness here in the United States and elsewhere in the world; we are now constantly surrounded by diverse ideas and perspectives, but few of us have been taught how to productively navigate that difference and to harness the potential it creates. As a result, instead of seeing our differences as a strength and opportunity, many people feel that their way of life and values are threatened by these differences, and they don’t see how to coexist in a way that everyone can flourish.
From what I can tell, this has made many people feel afraid and disempowered, and that, unfortunately, is a perfectly terrible recipe for polarization, angst, and radicalization.
That is why I have long thought that one of the best things we can do for the future of human society is to teach people how to productively work through our differences to create mutual gains outcomes. That is what conflict competence is all about, and that’s why I’ve been pushing this idea on the EDR blog (and in pretty much any other appropriate avenue I can find) for two years now.
It was with this goal in mind that I agreed to participate in an interview with journalist Conor Friedersdorf from The Atlantic back in January when he asked me to share my perspective on DEI issues for an article he was writing on Utah’s H.B. 261—the state’s “Equal Opportunities Initiative.” As I told him, I don’t take sides in arguing for or against any policy; however, I do care strongly about figuring out how to help people productively work through their differences to solve problems, such as the problem of how we create a truly inclusive and equitable world. That is the perspective I shared with him for his article, which was published in March.
It was that same goal that inspired me to say ‘yes’ when The Salt Lake Tribune reached out to me a few weeks ago to ask me to write an op-ed piece expanding on my ideas from the Atlantic piece. Here is a link to that op-ed.
I believe that the perspectives I shared in both pieces not only apply to addressing the challenge of how to create a truly inclusive and equitable world; they also apply to efforts to address all social challenges. Therefore, I want to elaborate on the three pieces of advice I shared in my op-ed and to illustrate how they apply to a current hot button issue: immigration.
Before I do so, I want to be clear that I am not taking sides on this issue, nor do I take any policy stance on this concern; I simply want to see us work together to get to a better place on this issue (and all public concerns), and I hope my below advice helps readers think about how we could do that.
1. To productively work through conflict—and to flourish—we need to be clear about and focus on what really matters to us
One of the key problems we run into when dealing with conflict is that we tend to become focused on positions (i.e., particular strategies or solutions) rather than focusing on our interests (i.e., what really matters to us: our underlying needs and concerns).
To illustrate with the example of immigration, people tend to focus on things such as “We need to build a border wall!” or “No border wall!” Or people argue, “We must deport all of the illegal immigrants!” or “Stop all deportation!” These are positions.
Our interests are “why” we care about an issue—they are what really matters to us.
In the case of immigration, my understanding from engaging with people from diverse walks of life is that many folks are concerned about how an ongoing flow of immigrants could affect public safety, community wellbeing, and the availability of employment. Many are concerned about humane and kind treatment of other people and ensuring American industries have access to enough labor to meet demand. Additionally, people who care about the issue often worry about things such as the cost of policies, which will directly affect taxes and/or other government programs.
Such concerns are much closer to people’s core interests than the positions we often push. However, to truly understand what really matters to us, it is helpful to keep asking “Why is that important to me?” over and over again until we get to what really feels like the root of the issue—our fundamental needs and concerns. Let me illustrate through applying this idea to two different example positions people sometimes take on immigration:
Example 1: We need to build a border wall! Why do I think we should build a border wall? Because I am worried about how illegal immigrants will affect American jobs. Why am I concerned about that? Because I want Americans to have jobs. Why am I concerned about that? Because I want Americans to thrive. Why am I concerned about that? Because I want this country to flourish. Why am I concerned about that? Because I myself want to flourish, and this is where I live!
Or
Example 2: We should not build a border wall! Why do I think we should not build a border wall? Because I think it is really expensive and won’t actually address our immigration problems. Why do I care about that? Because I don’t want to waste government money, and I want to address our immigration problems. Why do I care about that? Because I want my taxpayer money to go into things that improve our country, and I want to figure out a solution that actually addresses our immigration problems. Why do I care about that? Because I want our country to flourish. Why do I care about that? Because I myself want to flourish, and this is where I live!
You might think those examples are overly simplistic. However, I can tell you from two decades of working with people involved in a diverse range of conflicts, a lot of research, and my own lived experience, that at the heart of most people’s concerns is a desire to thrive. We want to know that our basic needs, including our physical safety and emotional wellbeing, will be taken care of, and we want to feel connection and belonging.
Understanding this helps us realize that we have more in common than we often assume, including our fundamental human desire to be safe, to belong, and to thrive. Additionally, it helps us see that often our positional fighting is one of the greatest threats to getting a truly good outcome—one that promotes our thriving—since, as we are unfortunately seeing throughout the United States, fighting, alienating each other, and divisiveness take a toll on us emotionally and physically, erode the fabric of our communities, and waste precious energy, time, and resources that could otherwise be put into problem solving.
In the case of immigration, the ongoing political fighting about the issue has not only cost tremendous time, energy, and money on legal battles; it has also deepened ideological divisions and polarization, which present a very real threat to the wellbeing and flourishing of our country and the people in it. If we really care about addressing immigration in a way that promotes the thriving of America and Americans, we should be working together to create solutions that really address the issue and address our needs.
You may be thinking: It isn’t possible to find a solution to immigration that would address all of the concerns I mentioned above–e.g., public safety, community wellbeing, availability of employment, humane and kind treatment of other people, ensuring American industries have access to enough labor to meet demand, and the cost-effectiveness of policies.
I do not purport to have solutions for our immigration challenges. I also think it is important to recognize that the immigration challenge is what we call a “wicked problem;” it is a complex problem that touches many other issues, and it will be an ongoing challenge. That said, none of these goals are mutually exclusive, and I think that if we commit to working together to problem solve, put our hearts and minds to it, and are skillful in interest-based negotiation, we will have little trouble co-creating mutual gains solutions that address all of those (and many other) immigration-related needs and concerns.
However, doing so will require getting beyond zero-sum thinking.
2. Our zero-sum thinking is the greatest barrier to effective problem solving (and, thus, flourishing)
Humans have a tendency to see the world as zero-sum, meaning that we assume for one person to do better, someone else must lose. It is therefore not surprising that we tend to approach conflict—and challenges, such as immigration—this way.
For example, some people assume that if we create opportunities for immigrants, that means Americans will lose opportunities. Or some assume that treating immigrants with dignity means we have to reject people’s concerns about the possible safety implications of illegal border crossings.
The good news is we live in a world of abundance where very few things are truly zero-sum. Additionally, as I know from two decades of studying and helping people navigate conflict, when people focus on their fundamental needs and concerns, we not only realize these interests are not mutually exclusive; we realize that, through working together and getting creative to problem solve, we can expand the proverbial pie and create value for everyone involved.
In the case of immigration, for example, perhaps people could identify areas where we need more workers and then create better legal pathways to recruit qualified immigrants to fill those jobs. If there is a concern about public safety, perhaps people could work together to understand risks to public safety and community wellbeing from all sources, and then focus time, energy, and resources on creating policies and programs that truly address those concerns.
In other words, instead of fighting over positions, we could focus our energy and resources on solving problems in a way that truly meets diverse people’s interests. However, to do so, we have to stop seeing situations as “win-lose” and instead focus on understanding what really matters to people and get creative to work together across our differences to create mutual gains solutions.
3. If we want to flourish, we need to teach people how to work across their differences to make positive change
Unfortunately, as I know from my experience and research, many—if not most—people don’t know how to do this (or even think it is possible). This is why I think one of the most important things we can do is teach people how to productively navigate our differences and work through conflict to make positive change.
I want to be clear that I’m not talking about teaching people to “be nice” or “just get along” or “be civil.” I am talking about teaching people how to get really clear on what matters to us and other people, how to effectively advocate for our and other people’s fundamental needs and concerns, and how to work with others to create solutions that address our needs and actually solve problems. That is what conflict competence—and the core conflict competencies, such as the skills of self-regulation, effective communication, focusing on interests rather than positions, and creative problem solving—are all about.
Much the same, we need to teach and emphasize dialogue, interest-based negotiation and collaborative problem solving, rather than focusing on debate and argumentation. See our recent EDR blogs for more information about these concepts.
I don’t have all the answers for how to address immigration or any of the other big challenges that threaten our ability to flourish as a global society. However, I am confident that better preparing people to productively navigate and create value from difference, rather than being afraid of it, will help.
If we want to flourish, let’s put our energy into working together to make the world better for all humans—and into teaching people how to do so.
Danya Rumore, Ph.D., is the director of the Environmental Dispute Resolution program in the Wallace Stegner Center at the University of Utah. She is a research professor in the S.J. Quinney College of Law and a clinical associate professor in the city and metropolitan planning department at the University of Utah. She teaches about, practices, and conducts research on conflict, negotiation, dispute resolution, leadership, and collaborative problem solving. She is also the founder and a co-director of the Gateway and Natural Amenity Region (GNAR) Initiative.
About the EDR blog: Hosted by the Wallace Stegner Center’s Environmental Dispute Resolution (EDR) program, the EDR blog shares ideas, tools, and resources to cultivate a culture of collaboration and help readers be more skillful in working through conflict. Read additional blog posts at edrblog.org.