INTHEBLACK July 2026 - Magazine - Page 55
DIVERSE VIEWS AND PERSPECTIVES WITHIN
an organisation are good for innovation, problem-solving
and employee engagement — in theory.
In practice, differing opinions in the workplace can
be difficult to navigate. Genevieve Hawkins, founder
of Mentally at Work, argues that disagreeing respectfully
by listening to each other’s views and remaining
solutions-focused can help strengthen a relationship, despite
differences in opinion. “When we disagree well, we get
a better outcome,” she says.
There is an art to disagreeing well. Hawkins says it is important
to assume good intent in the other party and recognise that their
opinion is valid before launching into a disagreement.
“We all see the world from different perspectives,” she says.
“One perspective is not right and another wrong. We all look
at the same data and interpret it differently.”
She also recommends viewing a disagreement as a learning
opportunity rather than a fight. “Instead of saying ‘I want
to be right’, say ‘I want to be curious’.”
CONVERSATIONAL RECEPTIVENESS
Harvard Kennedy School professor and behavioural scientist
Julia Minson, author of How to Disagree Better, takes a similar
view. She advises against viewing a disagreement as a contest
to be won, an approach that is more likely to lead to
an escalation in conflict instead of a productive outcome.
“Anytime there is a contest, there has to be a winner and
a loser,” she says. “Most of the time, when you say something
that makes you feel really good in a disagreement, it feels like
you just scored a point — and usually that is a sign of trouble.”
In her book, Minson defines a constructive disagreement
as “any disagreement that increases our desire to talk to each
other again”. “It has nothing to do with reaching resolution,
persuading the other person or finding middle ground;
it is simply that this conversation was interesting, and I would
be happy to talk to this person again.”
Popular approaches to conflict management advise
adopting an attitude of empathy or curiosity during
a disagreement, “but these are things that happen inside
your brain — you can feel empathy, but you cannot ‘act’
empathy,” Minson says. “This question of how you show
those internal processes is an important one, because your
counterparts cannot read your mind.”
To counter this problem, Minson and her colleagues
developed a communication style known as conversational
receptiveness: “a set of words and phrases that signal
to a person that their counterpart is actively engaged
with their perspective during disagreement”.
“We are much better at understanding words than we
are at interpreting body language,” she says. “That is where
conversational receptiveness comes in, because if you can
identify the specific words that people can say to make their
counterpart feel heard, then you have a toolkit that can help
people have better conversations.”
THE HEAR FRAMEWORK
Minson and her team developed a framework using
the acronym HEAR to help people put conversational
receptiveness into practice.
H stands for hedging your claims, using words such
as sometimes, maybe and possibly. “These words introduce
a little bit of uncertainty into what you are claiming so that
the other person can see that you are keeping their point
of view in mind as you are talking.”
E stands for emphasising agreement, using phrases such
as “I also want to”, “we are both interested in” or “I agree
with some of what you are saying” to signal common ground
without necessarily agreeing. Any two people who disagree
about a specific work-related matter will find other areas of
agreement, Minson says. “Often the things they agree about
are the reason they are in the conversation: ‘we both think
that good financial management is important for running a
company well; we just disagree about exactly how to do
that’.”
A stands for acknowledgement, using phrases such
as “I understand that” or “it seems to me that you are saying”.
“It is taking a few seconds to restate your counterpart’s
perspective, so they have evidence you were listening when
they were talking.”
R stands for reframing to the positive. “Eliminate negative
and contradictory words like ‘no’, ‘cannot’, ‘will not’, ‘terrible’
and ‘hate’, and replace them with positive phrases such as
‘I think it is wonderful when’, ‘I would really appreciate it if’
or ‘it would be great if we could’,” Minson says.
“I might want to say, for example, ‘I hate being rushed
into stressful decisions. Please stop’. “I could say, ‘I really
appreciate it when people give me the time to consider
important decisions. Thank you so much for understanding’.
“I said the same thing — ‘I want more time’ — but the tone
is very different.”
PUT PEN TO PAPER
Hawkins acknowledges that it can be difficult to maintain
a clear head during a disagreement. The COIN feedback
model — connection, observation, impact and next
steps — is another framework that people can use to keep
a difficult conversation on track.
She recommends that professionals outline arguments
in writing in advance of any face-to-face discussion, including
the points that both parties agree on, your position,
an understanding of the opposing view and three to five
questions to ask to clarify their position further.
“Bring your notepad into the meeting,” Hawkins says.
“Sometimes emotion can get the better of us. If that happens,
take a deep breath and go back to your notes.” ■
READ
UPSKILL
an article about how
to uphold core values
at work
with CPA Australia’s
Difficult Interactions
online short course
intheblack.cpaaustralia.com.au 55
