A smarter way to disagree

Disagreement handled poorly can have massive interpersonal and financial costs.

Every day, in every organization around the globe, people disagree about everything from pricing strategies to hiring decisions to major acquisitions. And disagree they should. Research across every social science shows that disagreement offers important benefits: Divergent perspectives spark creativity, prevent costly errors, and drive better decisions. But, of course, there is also risk: Disagreement handled poorly can have massive interpersonal and financial costs.

Over the decades there has been a plethora of recommendations from academics and consultants on how people can disagree constructively. Some instruct people to think and feel in certain ways toward their counterparts: “Put yourself in their shoes.” “Have compassion and empathy.” “Try to understand them rather than judging them.” Others tell them what to do and say: “Ask clarifying questions.” “Make ‘I,’ not ‘you,’ statements.” “Use open body language to signal receptiveness, friendliness, and a willingness to engage.” Nevertheless, despite this wealth of advice, conflict persists.

Over the past 10 years we have conducted dozens of experiments on how people in a variety of settings can disagree more constructively. Our key finding: People’s internal mental processes (the think and feel techniques) have a limited impact on outcomes for a simple reason—we can’t read other people’s minds. This means that for others to notice, appreciate, and react to our conflict-management attempts, our thoughts and feelings must be reflected in the things we do and say. Mental states must be translated into observable behaviors.

We tested this idea in a recent study involving 1,113 Americans drawn from online platforms that people join to earn money by participating in research. Three groups wrote messages to somebody who strongly disagreed with them about a hiring policy. One group got no specific guidance. Another received the classic guidance about considering the other side’s perspective and being empathetic to people with different viewpoints. The final group received instructions about the specific words and phrases they should use to express their receptiveness to opposing viewpoints. People on the opposing side of the argument who read the messages from the third group—in which writers were instructed on the specific language to use—viewed them as the most objective, intelligent, and trustworthy of the three groups, and the ones they were the most willing to work with in the future.

The implication: Organizations should train people to modify their behavior during disagreements in the most concrete ways possible. More specifically, they should get people to be more attentive to their linguistic behavior—to carefully choose the words they use—because, as we explain below, unlike a person’s thoughts and feelings, language is observable by counterparts, trainers, mentors, or anyone else interested in improving communication during disagreements. We can also directly measure language with technology and effectively train people to improve how they speak to others during challenging conversations.