I was recently chatting with a few colleagues, and as a throw-away I mentioned that there’s always common ground to be found in situations if you look hard enough.
One of my colleagues stopped me and firmly disagreed, arguing that, while rare, there are always situations in which there is no common ground.
I’ve been thinking about our respective positions since.
The concept of common ground is not niche, but I’d not thought about it as clearly as how the authors of widely cited book, Getting to Yes, put it when they talked about shared interests: “we tend to assume that because the other side’s positions are opposed to ours, their interests must also be opposed…however, a close examination of the underlying interests will reveal the existence of many more interests that are shared or compatible than ones that are opposed.”
In almost every situation in life, we are working with people who come to the table with different contexts and priorities. As individuals and as organisations, we all have ingrained biases that guide how we act, particularly when faced with those differences.
In some instances, finding common ground is easy. For example, when we are consulting with stakeholders on the details of a project that already has their support.
But sometimes, it’s not so simple. As we embark on some of the most significant transitions of our time, it’s how we approach these trickier circumstances that will define our future.
Technology is rapidly evolving, organisations of all kinds are working urgently to address climate change, and major industries are making substantial investments in infrastructure to decarbonise our economy.
As they do, the prevalence of mis- and disinformation and rising polarisation is making it more difficult to bridge the gaps between different opinions. Too often, two sides seem to be shouting at each other about an issue rather than working together to solve it.
Compounding these challenges is the increasing onus that governments and regulators are placing on organisations to consult with a wider range of stakeholders and community members than they have before.
These organisations often operate in industries that have previously done their job without having to talk about it at all. Now their plans can hinge entirely on the perspectives of others.
Meanwhile, communities and stakeholders are fatigued by being asked to provide meaningful feedback on complex and challenging topics they feel they have no real say in.
It’s only natural that they can view each other as opposing forces.
The reality is that we need urgent action on the climate crisis, and we need this infrastructure – and not everyone will be pleased with every decision that's made along the way.
There is a risk, though, in approaching consultation or collaboration with an ‘us vs. them’ mindset. It guides the type and tone of information you share, it can breed an environment of distrust (on both sides), and it can threaten an organisation’s ability to build and maintain a social licence to operate - a requirement of many decision-makers.
Looking for common ground doesn’t mean you have to compromise on everything, or sacrifice anything necessarily. There are important lines in the sand that need to be drawn, and outcomes any organisation needs to achieve. You won’t always agree on everything, and you don’t need to – as long as you have logical rationale and a defensible position.
It does mean that you come to the situation with an appreciation of the other party’s context and an understanding of the perspectives at play. It also means you’re more likely to have a genuine intention of gathering insights and feedback and working together to achieve the most mutually favourable outcome.
My point to my colleague was that common ground exists in any situation, but whether you are willing to look for it, or able to reach it, is a separate consideration.
For the record, I still believe that, and he still disagrees. What do you think?