Keep up with everything happening in The Commons by signing up for our Philanthropy Today newsletter.
It’s part of the job. Working at a nonprofit, you talk to a variety of people — board members, donors, elected officials and government bureaucrats, co-workers, the people you serve. Powder-keg topics routinely come up in conversation, particularly now, when election season division is mixed with intense Israel-Hamas debate and culture-war furor.
How do you navigate those conversations — for yourself and your organization?
It may be obvious, but you don’t want to model conversations on fiery talk shows. That results in antipathy, not common ground. When conversations go awry, they “devolve in fairly predictable ways,” says Katie Hyten, co-executive director of Essential Partners, a nonprofit that helps people build relationships across their differences.
“When you feel threatened, you’re going to start only paying attention to the things that are going to help you defend yourself or attack the other person,” she says. “And then if you do that, they’re going to respond in the same way.”
These breakdowns can lead to hurt feelings that derail future conversations. Hyten and other experts say a few key strategies can keep conversations civil and relationships intact.
Set Expectations
If your conversation will touch on a controversial issue, set the stage, says Lara Schwartz, director of the American University Project on Civil Dialogue.
“The best thing we can do in advance of a conversation is make our shared intentions clear,” she says. If the goal is to learn about the other person’s view, say that. Conversation partners are likely to put up defenses or argue if they believe the goal is persuasion.
Shared goals can help if the conversation veers off track, adds Hyten. “lf you start to see things ratcheting up, you can say, ‘I just want to come back to that purpose.’”
Embrace Your Humanity
When conversations get heated, the body’s defenses can take over. There’s a fight-or-flight response biologically when you’re attacked, says Sarah Cross, vice president of free speech and peace at the grant maker Stand Together.
“We’re not particularly capable psychologically of responding productively once we’re full of all those stress hormones,” she says. Pay attention to your body’s signals. “Are you sweating? Is your heart racing? Do you feel nervous? If so, the best thing to do might be to step away for a minute to take deep breaths in and out.”
If the other person is getting heated, create an off-ramp. “If you see that they’re no longer able to tap into their best selves, offer a break,” Hyten says. “Say, ‘Let’s go grab a cup of coffee,’ or ‘Let’s maybe go for a walk and come back to this in a few minutes.’”
Cross and Hyten note that it takes 20 minutes to reach equilibrium after fight-or-flight hormones kick in. If you don’t want a long break, lean into another innately human trait: curiosity.
“When things get tough, ask a question like, ‘I really want to understand what you’re saying. Could you tell me a little bit about what’s at the heart of this matter for you?’” Hyten says.
Also: It’s a good idea to think of one or two of these questions ahead of time. They should aim at deeper understanding, Cross adds. “There’s a way to ask questions that feel like an interrogation, and there’s a way to ask questions that feel like you’re really trying to get to know the other person.” Be willing to answer the same questions. “Even if they don’t ask, you can share your answer, too.”
Show Your Work
Conflict often sparks when one side feels its ideas are dismissed out of hand, says David Glasgow, co-author of the book Say the Right Thing: How to Talk About Identity, Diversity, and Justice.
Arguments made in a “slapdash” way can fuel hard feelings, Glasgow says: Listeners may flatly reject the argument, and you may conclude they don’t respect you or your opinion. He advises to “show your work” and make clear: “No, I’ve really thought about this. Here are the arguments that I’ve considered, and here’s why I still have the view I have.”
Give (and Get) Grace
Productive conversations are unlikely unless both sides feel safe speaking. That can’t happen if someone fears a careless word will get them canceled or labeled racist, sexist, or another derogatory term.
“Reports of self-censorship today are higher than they were during the Joseph McCarthy era,” Cross says. People often won’t engage in tough conversations out of fear.
Everyone must understand that mistakes will happen. “If we’re going to talk, we’re going to get it wrong sometimes, because humans get it wrong,” Schwartz says. “We need to give grace.”
In a worst-case scenario, a remark might be insulting or dehumanizing. Hard as it may be, Schwartz says, listeners should try to give grace and assume the harm was unintended. At the same time, they should make clear their feelings. And the person who made the comment should be grateful for the feedback.
“Do we want to create a culture where everyone is fearful of making a mistake because they know that the consequences are going to be brutal?” Glasgow says. “Or do we want to create a culture where, as long as people are acting in good faith and trying to do the right thing, they’re going to feel supported to do better?”
Agree to Disagree
Finally, conversations are just tools to help people better know and understand others. They rarely lead to quick epiphanies or deep ideological shifts.
“The way we’re wired psychologically, we will probably never actually persuade each other on the facts, and trying can move the person farther in the opposite direction of where you want them to go,” Cross says. Still, we are wired to build empathy with one another. “We want to relate to each other.”
It’s best to focus on common ground, which is different from middle ground, Schwartz says.
“People tend to valorize middle ground,” she says. “If I want red and you want blue, maybe the middle is purple. But the middle position might not necessarily be better. The middle ground between white supremacy and equality is not better than equality.”
Instead of looking for the middle, find commonalities. “Take an inventory on all of the things that we have in common,” Schwartz says. “Sometimes that includes the motivations behind our positions.” For instance, despite very polarized viewpoints on policing policy, most people say their primary motivation is safety. “You don’t meet a ton of people who are like, ‘My goal is for there to be more violence. My goal is to break everything,’” Schwartz says.
When focusing on that common ground, both sides may agree, or they may have to agree to disagree. Or they may find some combination.
“Maybe paths forward come from saying, ‘We’ll never agree on guns, but we can absolutely agree on mental health,’” Hyten says. “So, yes, that is common ground, but it’s not common ground on the issue of guns.”
And that’s fine, Cross adds. The key to a healthy society is having those conversations, not having everyone agree.
“Our goal is never to achieve uniformity,” she says. “We are a diverse society. We want to be a diverse society because diversity is what drives innovation and progress and learning and self-actualization and growth. That happens when we come into productive contact with each other.”
The Commons is financed in part with philanthropic support from the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, Einhorn Collaborative, and JPB Foundation. None of our supporters have any control over or input into story selection, reporting, or editing, and they do not review articles before publication. See more about the Chronicle, the grants, how our foundation-supported journalism works, and our gift-acceptance policy.
