The concept I'm about to talk about should be familiar to most of my readers, and to the general public as well, hopefully. Dale Carnegie referred to it in How to Win Friends and Influence People as "Talk in terms of the other person's interest." It's how we're supposed to get other people to do what we want, and how to present ourselves in applications to programs, grants and jobs.
My topic for today is "presenting the issue not as a negative, but as something that could be turned into a possibility." Seems obvious, right? If I'm asking you to change something about yourself or to side with me on an issue, you'd be much more likely to if I explain why you'd want to. Simply put, we should have an answer for "what's in it for me?"
At my college about a month ago, we had a big debate about whether or not activities funds, which do come out of our tuition, should be used to buy Chick-fil-a for campus events. The specific issue is kind of a moot point now, considering that Chick-fil-a has decided to no longer donate to controversial groups that support the "traditional family" over gay marriage. There were a lot of points raised at the Talk Back session hosted by the school newspaper, but I want to focus on one as it relates to today's topic.
The debate was framed as a for-or-against issue: either we should buy Chick-fil-a for campus events (most notably After Midnight, a free food event that happens once a month) or we should not. Regardless of my stance on gay rights and gay marriage, I started to look at it in terms of possibilities. Most people were offering nothing as an alternative. Chicken sandwiches vs. nothing. A number of people fired back, saying they supported gay rights, but they really didn't want to lose their free chicken. It sounds petty, I know. Here's the suggestion I made, and how I would resolve debates like this in the future:
I suggested that we stop framing it as Chick-fil-a vs. nothing, or an unknown alternative. Instead, we should talk about other options that students would like, such as a local chicken chain, or a local Indian restaurant. We wouldn't see it so much as losing our chicken sandwiches as gaining chicken tenders, or tasty Indian food, or...there are plenty of possibilities. But we didn't explore that perspective as much as I would have liked, and I think there was still some resentment when the final verdict was handed down as "it is in our best interests not to buy Chick-fil-a this year," not "it is in our best interests to offer other options such as [insert alternative here]."
What does this mean for the bigger picture? Throughout our lives, we will tell people what they can't do, and we will be told what we can't do either. If these changes are left at that, then they will often be viewed as negative and unpopular. However, if we suggest viable alternatives to the restrictions from these changes, or explain why the change benefits everyone, or take a bit of both options, we can make more people happy, and more willing to accept any negative consequences the change might incur.
From chicken sandwiches at my college to workplace reform at the national level (something we're discussing in one of my classes right now), and everywhere in between, it seems as though most are content to talk only of changes as issues that must be decided, whether or not people are happy with the results. If we change that norm, and start framing these discussions in terms of the possibilities these changes can bring, and the benefits that come with them, I think more and more will start thinking that change is, more often than not, good for everyone.
TL;DR: These days, we often talk about change as good for only one group, with another group making the sacrifice. If we present the change in terms of possibilities and advantages to all groups, we will start seeing less resentment and more approval of the new policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment