Do you want to bring meaningfulness into your life and work?

The MW Newsletter is a long-form resource whose aim is to bring substance and insight to your life.

You can subscribe below or join the conversation in our dedicated LinkedIn group.

Dr Todd Mei

Editor & Founder of Philosophy2u

Content for February 2024

Our focus this month is the Etiquette of Confrontation.

1. What is Etiquette? What is Confrontation?

2. Practice: “The Traitors” & Insights on Group Behavior

3. Ideation: The Beauty of Rhetoric

4. Guest Column: Creating Consensus by David Utsler (PhD)

~

“Misunderstanding is the beginning of reflective dialogue, and reflective dialogue is the path to mutuality.”

What Is Etiquette?

What is Confrontation?

“When everything is going smoothly, it's often hard to change things . . . People who are sure they have the answers stop asking questions. And people who stop asking questions never challenge the status quo. Without such challenges, an organization can drift slowly into deep trouble before it gets a clear signal that something is wrong.”
 

William Bridges, Managing Transitions

* * * * *

Etiquette is a form of prescribed behavior.

Exactly what is prescribed depends on the normative values and expectations relevant to a given situation. For example, applauding a performance may be good etiquette to show appreciation for skill and artistry. However, conventions change when at a classical music performance, where applauding before the piece is completely over is a faux pas.

Confrontation is obvious in meaning to anyone who has been involved in an argument. Yet, it has an interesting historical background. The Medieval roots of confrontation (1630s: confrontationem) involve . . . you guessed it, normative conventions about disagreement.

Confrontation involves two disputing parties coming together in view of finding the truth to settle the argument. Within Medieval scholastic debate, this often meant having to summarize the opposing party’s view to their satisfaction.

Imagine if that were a requirement today! A lot less heat would be generated, and mutual understanding might be possible.

In the professional world, confrontation can be a sticky point unless the organization has clear and fair normative expectations in place. Transparency, safety, and humility are three important virtues that can help create an etiquette of confrontation. Virtues can be decisive in turning disagreement into critical and constructive discussion. in the “Practical Tips” section, Joe Smart explores how a self-reflective process can help one become aware of what qualities are necessary when handling disagreement.

Perhaps of Interest

Who Needs Virtues Anyway?

How Virtues Can Work in Business

Determining what virtues are necessary and helpful for a business is a bespoke process of discovery. But some easier, initial steps to take are thinking through turns of phrase and rhetoric to help make conversation candid, yet hospitable. Todd Mei reflects on the role of rhetoric as another form of etiquette in the “Ideation” section.

Practice:

“The Traitors” & Insights on Group Behavior 

“The Traitors” is a gripping television series that originated in the UK, featuring a group of individuals tasked with working together to win money.

However, here's the twist:

Among them are two to three traitors, whose objective is to deceive their fellow participants while undermining their efforts.

Each night, the group engages in discussions, accusations fly, and votes are cast to identify and eliminate the traitors. The tension is palpable as alliances shift, trust wavers, and suspicions run high.

What makes “The Traitors” particularly fascinating is its exploration of group dynamics and interpersonal conflict. As viewers, we're drawn into the intense debates and strategic maneuvers, experiencing vicariously the uncertainty and mistrust that permeate the group. It's a masterclass in observing human behavior under pressure.

One key insight that emerged from watching the show is the profound impact of conflict on individuals, even those who are merely spectators. Research suggests that witnessing rudeness or aggression can activate our “olympic brain,” priming us for defense or escape. Interestingly, I noticed my own tendency to feel uncomfortable during heated moments on the show, even though I was not directly involved.

Moreover, “The Traitors” offers a unique perspective on the rapid evolution of team dynamics. Participants must constantly reassess their roles and alliances, adapting to ever-changing circumstances. This constant flux creates a high-stress environment, prompting reflection on the psychological toll it may take on contestants beyond the show's confines.

As we immerse ourselves in the drama of “The Traitors,” it prompts us to reflect on our own responses to conflict and incivility.

• How do we react when tensions rise?

• Are we able to maintain empathy and civility, even in challenging situations?

These are questions worth pondering as we navigate our interactions in both personal and professional settings.

Furthermore, the show underscores the importance of creating spaces for open and honest dialogue, where individuals feel empowered to express themselves without fear of judgment or reprisal. While we may not be facing elimination votes in our daily lives, fostering a culture of constructive communication can enhance collaboration and understanding.

~

“The Traitors” offers more than just entertainment; it serves as a thought-provoking exploration of human behavior and group dynamics. So, next time you tune in, pay attention to your own reactions and insights. Who knows what valuable lessons you might glean from this captivating series?

As always, I'd love to hear your thoughts and reflections on this topic. Until next time, take care!

Joseph Smart 

OD&D Consultant, Smart Joseph Consulting

joe@smartjoseph.com 

Ideation:

The Beauty of Rhetoric

The word “rhetoric” often invokes a negative connotation, referring to speech that is empty, vapid, or manipulative. Even in ancient Greek times, rhetoricians stood in stark opposition to philosophers – the former focusing on the beauty of speech to persuade regardless of truth; the latter intent on finding the truth for the purpose of knowledge.

Yet, the less controversial roots of rhetoric have to do with the way in which the beauty of speaking sits within a shared, communal aim. Let’s call this aim understanding.

On understanding and confrontation, the philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) observes,

Experiences of resistance or opposition bear witness to this [understanding], for example, in discussion. Discussion bears fruit when a common language is found. Then the participants part from one another as changed beings. The individual perspectives with which they entered upon the discussion have been transformed, and so they are transformed themselves.

Reason in the Age of Science

Rhetoric plays a key role in helping this process of transformation and understanding, for it brings distant interlocutors together by helping to bridge differences.

Not buzz words, but building bridges.

Don’t think of rhetorical bridges as terms of compromise, although they can be, but think of them as signaling disagreement with the view to further understanding why there is disagreement without isolating others involved in the discussion.

One of the guiding principles of hermeneutical philosophy (i.e. the philosophy dedicated to understanding others), is that in order to bridge distance, one must first sufficiently encounter and understand what constitutes that distance. (For more on this, see David Utsler's guest column below.)

In the professional world, the “beauty” of rhetoric can provide a great deal of help for us when attempting to understand this distance. It can do so by inviting others to think along as opposed to merely isolating and challenging others.

No doubt, you will have heard that it is often better to be liked than to be right. Studies show that interlocutors are more likely to disagree with someone if they are unpleasant or confrontational, even when they are right.

The beauty of rhetoric helps to create a spirit of team investigation, partnering to find solutions amidst disagreement.

Ok, enough ideation.

Let’s take a page out of the profession of academic philosophy. Philosophers can be very hostile to one another, and I’ve seen some of the worst examples of human etiquette according to “old school” rules in which academics try to score points and belittle the opponent directly and obliquely through back-handed compliments.

But when philosophical debate goes well, you will often find certain rhetorical phrases used to express disagreement in the spirit of asking for further collaborative investigation. One of the most common:

“I have a worry about something you said . . .”

This phrase is often used to express a concern without dismissing a point. It also signals a humility about one’s own view, which itself may be flawed or may have misunderstood the other person.

Here are some more, as suggested by my academic colleagues.*

“Can I see if I have understood? It seems like you are saying . . .”

As we saw with Medieval debate, this phrase helps to put the discussion on level ground since it is asking if the one understands sufficiently the view expressed. Only then can disagreement be productive. Who wants to argue at cross purposes?

“What I like about . . .” or “What I am sympathetic towards . . .” or “Can you tell me more about . . .”

As long as these phrases are used genuinely (not as lip service), then it helps to create a common ground, even if provisional. It may also lead to the group seeing more distinctions and options within the spectrum of “yes, I agree” and “no, I disagree”.

“My contribution to that idea is . . .”

This helps to signal a critical intervention in the spirit of collaboration.

“What is the (logic, emotion) behind that?”

When put amicably, this question helps to promote mutual understanding.

“Based on your view, what do you think is at stake?”

A question that helps to identify biases, presuppositions, and assumptions of goals.

“Can you talk more about the compromises you've had to make (or corners you've had to cut) in reaching your conclusion?”

A great question for promoting humility and group investigation.

With these rhetorical bridges in your repertoire, there will be less reason to fear confrontation, and more enthusiasm to embrace the constructive process of listening and engaging.

Dr Todd Mei

Founder and Consultant for Philosophy2u

tsmei@philosophy2u.com

*Thank you to Graeme Forbes, Matthijs Wibier, Corina Carol, and Vera Naputi for their suggestions (with my slight alterations to make them less academically focused)!

Creating Consensus 

by David Utsler (PhD)

In a previous life (prior to academic life), I worked at a non-profit where I led a small team of roughly 30 people. One afternoon I was having a conversation with Nicole, one of my departmental directors, about how to create consensus.

Later that evening, Nicole was a guest speaker at a continuing adult education seminar that I ran. At one point, I was discussing with the group some options for our upcoming retreat due to a conflict with the venue regarding the schedule. I wanted to host the retreat at a time and place most convenient for everyone. I presented some options and got feedback from different ones in the group. We had a few glitches and continued to consider ways around them in everyone’s best interest. In just a short time, the discussion yielded a solution that was acceptable to the group. After the seminar, Nicole walked up to me and said,

“Remember that conversation we were having about consensus-building earlier today? I just witnessed it happen.”

In any scenario where people must work together on projects or goals, consensus can sometimes be elusive. Each individual may have different ideas about priorities or desired outcomes. There may be differing ideas on methods or strategies to get to the goal. In other words, there is often what the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur referred to as a “conflict of interpretations” (or understandings) among members of a team.

In this article, I will present a couple of key principles drawn from philosophical hermeneutics (interpretation theory) that can be built upon to create consensus. What follows is by no means exhaustive, but here are a couple of principles I have found productive.

From Misunderstanding to Mutual Understanding

For anyone to engage in a conversation with the intent on finding solutions on a shared project, each member of a team first must believe that a shared understanding is possible. Without the possibility of shared understanding, there is little point in having a conversation at all!

The philosopher, Hans-Georg Gadamer, said that the “art of speaking” requires the possibility of “understanding and consent.” He wrote that

“there would be no hermeneutical task if there were no mutual understanding that has been disturbed and that those involved in a conversation must search for and find together.”

This is quite similar to the idea in the mind of a sculptor that the sculpture already resides in the marble, and it is the sculptor’s task to remove the marble around what is already there. Likewise, those engaged in conversation must believe that the solutions they seek are already there. The conversation is the work of chipping away what conceals them.

Understanding Does Not Imply Agreement

One of the most important things to keep in mind here is that a mutual understanding between the members of a team does not imply mutual agreement. I do not have to necessarily agree with a colleague in order to understand where they are coming from, which can make moving forward possible even if differing viewpoints remain.

The key to the kind of understanding I am talking about implies a commitment to understanding my dialogue partners as they understand themselves rather than how I might perceive them. This requires truly listening and overcoming the “prejudgments” we carry with us and impose, usually unwittingly, on our dialogue partners.

Prejudgments

What are prejudgments?

Prejudgments are comprised of things we already know or believe that frame how we understand or perceive new things. For example, people of differing religious traditions may approach the same issue in very different ways according to the beliefs they implicitly hold. We are typically not immediately cognizant of prejudgments; they are simply already there shaping how we “read” a new situation. We all have them and no one is free of them.

Prejudgments are simply conditions for understanding. A prejudgment can be justified or unjustified, so it is important to know that we have them and engage in self-reflection to examine them. This is extremely important for consensus building and the discourse surrounding it. And I may need to be willing to surrender a prejudgment, or at least suspend it, when I engage my colleagues in discourse. It is only this willingness that can make possible reconciling that conflict of interpretations I mentioned earlier.

Goodwill

Finally, an indispensable requirement for building consensus is that all stakeholders have goodwill toward one another. We have all likely had colleagues that are either driven by ego or perhaps have their own unspoken agendas (or maybe we have been that person!).

Achieving true consensus about a way forward is nearly impossible without this attitude. The lack of goodwill walls off consensus from a team. The mutual understanding that is a central goal cannot result from the lack of goodwill.

Building consensus is no small task but with a commitment to do so and the employment of the hermeneutic principles listed here, the potential is limitless. So, what is my advice on the first step to creating consensus?

Welcome misunderstanding—that is, welcome the conflict of interpretations. Don’t just tolerate misunderstanding. Certainly, don’t eschew it or become angry over it. Welcome it! Misunderstanding is the beginning of reflective dialogue, and reflective dialogue is the path to mutuality.

About the Author

David Utsler received his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of North Texas, specializing in philosophical hermeneutics and environmental philosophy. He is currently the co-director of The International Association for Environmental Philosophy. He co-edited Interpreting Nature: The Emerging Field of Environmental Hermeneutics (Fordham University Press, 2014) and is author of the forthcoming Paul Ricoeur and Environmental Philosophy: An Introductory Inquiry, which will be published by Lexington Press for the series, Studies in the Thought of Paul Ricoeur.

Subscribe, Stay on Top of Meaningfulness!

Check out free and paid resources on P2U and Thinkific! Or try our philosophical AI chatbot Dio.

Logo Artwork by Dattura

Disclaimers

This newsletter is intended for educational and entertainment purposes only. The information given to the user is with the understanding that neither the authors nor contributors are engaged in rendering any legal, business or financial advice to the subscriber or to the general public. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Philosophy2u. Any content provided by our bloggers or authors is of their opinion, and is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything. Although we make strong efforts to make sure our information is accurate, Philosophy2u cannot guarantee that all the information contained in the newsletter is always correct, complete, or up-to-date.