{"id":2332,"date":"2023-12-13T15:21:45","date_gmt":"2023-12-13T15:21:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/buildersmovement.org\/?p=2332"},"modified":"2024-03-13T18:28:00","modified_gmt":"2024-03-13T18:28:00","slug":"make-it-a-habit-be-hard-on-issues-but-soft-on-people","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buildersmovement.org\/2023\/12\/13\/make-it-a-habit-be-hard-on-issues-but-soft-on-people\/","title":{"rendered":"Make It A Habit: Be Hard on Issues But Soft on People"},"content":{"rendered":"

Imagine your boss confronted you about a problem at work and told you, \u201cThis is all your fault. You\u2019re a bad employee.\u201d Would you feel good about that encounter? Would you feel motivated to do better?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

There\u2019s a well-known adage in conflict resolution and negotiation: It\u2019s good to be <\/span>\u201chard on issues but soft on people.\u201d<\/span><\/i> This advice is useful for <\/span>leaders<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>salespeople<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>mediators<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>peacebuilders<\/span><\/a>, just about any profession where persuading people or compromising with people is a necessary part of the job.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Being hard on issues but soft on people means judging or criticizing people\u2019s <\/span>ideas<\/span><\/i> and <\/span>behaviors<\/span><\/i> rather than the people themselves. When we\u2019re asking someone to reconsider their behavior or position on an issue, making them feel like a bad person will likely further entrench them or drive them away, limiting the opportunity for constructive conflict and cooperative problem solving across differences.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

When we talk at a higher level about ideas and behaviors and outcomes, and leave aside personal judgments, our words become less threatening and more persuasive. We\u2019ll be more likely to de-escalate tensions, better able to see each others\u2019 points, and more likely to achieve lasting resolution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In the example we gave of the boss confronting their employee, this would mean the boss talking about the nature of the problem and how to best solve it. It would mean the boss avoiding, as much as possible, directing negative judgments at the employee themself. This makes it more likely that the employee would feel positive about the work relationship and empowered to solve the problem.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

So often, when we\u2019re involved in a conflict, we\u2019re drawn to personal judgments and insults. And this makes sense \u2014 there are things we care about and things we are angry about, sometimes for good reason. And sometimes we\u2019ll be provoked by insults coming from the people on the \u201cother side.\u201d We may even think that our righteous judgments of \u201cthose people\u201d will be helpful; we may feel that some shaming is <\/span>necessary <\/span><\/i>to change their behavior.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

But our righteous judgments and insults can <\/span>amplify the very anger or pushback<\/span><\/a> that is bothering us about their behavior. No one likes to feel <\/span>judged or shamed or humiliated<\/span><\/a> \u2014 that\u2019s why people skilled in conflict resolution and negotiation know to avoid those things.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

These ideas apply to our toxic political polarization problem: The more polarized and angry we become, the more politicians and pundits and activists will engage in <\/span>personal insults and righteous judgments<\/span><\/a>. When this happens, fewer people will be interested in seeing the wisdom of being hard on issues but soft on people \u2014 leading to a vicious cycle of anger, outrage, and problem-solving stalemates.<\/span><\/p>\n

Want to learn more about how we might disagree in healthier, less toxic ways?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n