The Problem with Being Right
Updated: 2 days ago
The Test of a First-Rate Intelligence Is the Ability To Hold Two Opposed Ideas in the Mind at the Same Time — F. Scott Fitzgerald
This quarter’s focus is Difficult Conversations.
Most difficult conversations begin with a problem.
But somewhere along the way, they often turn into a contest.
Who was right?
Who misunderstood?
Who caused the problem?
Who needs to change?
We gather evidence for our side and prepare to defend it.
The problem is that the person across from us is usually doing exactly the same thing. And when both people enter a conversation determined to establish whose version is correct, there isn't much room left for understanding.
What if we approached it differently?
Replace "But" With "And"
In Difficult Conversations, the authors introduce something called the And Stance.
It's the ability to hold two perspectives at the same time.
I intended to help, AND my actions frustrated you.
I believe my decision was reasonable, AND I understand why you experienced it differently.
I was disappointed by what happened, AND there may be context I don't understand.
The word "and" doesn't require us to abandon our perspective. It simply creates room for another one.
That's harder than it sounds.
When someone describes an experience that conflicts with our own, our instinct is often to correct it:
"That's not what happened."
"That's not what I meant."
"Yes, but..."
We treat their perspective as though accepting any part of it invalidates ours.
Two things can be true.
And difficult conversations become more productive when we stop requiring one perspective to defeat the other.
From Blame to Contribution
There's another shift that can change these conversations:
Instead of asking: Whose fault is this?
Ask: How did each of us contribute to where we are?
Blame looks backward and asks who caused the problem.
Contribution looks at the system and asks how we each helped create it.
Maybe someone repeatedly missed a deadline. That's their responsibility. But perhaps I also tolerated it for six months without saying anything.
Maybe a teammate stopped sharing information. That's worth addressing. But perhaps every time they challenged me, I became defensive.
Maybe an employee misunderstood my expectations. They may own part of that. And maybe I wasn't nearly as clear as I thought I was.
Contribution isn't about splitting responsibility 50/50. Sometimes my contribution might be significant. Sometimes it might be very small.
And recognizing my contribution doesn't excuse someone else's behavior.
It gives me something I can actually influence; my part.
Getting It Right, Not Being Right
This is where difficult conversations often become leadership moments.
If my goal is to prove that I'm right, I need to defend my position.
If my goal is to get it right, I need to understand yours.
That requires enough humility to say:
Here's what I experienced. AND I want to understand what you experienced.
And enough self-awareness to ask:
How might I have contributed to this?
Neither question removes accountability. Neither requires agreement. They simply change the goal of the conversation from winning the argument to understanding the problem.
This Month's Leadership Tip
Before your next difficult conversation, ask yourself two questions:
What might be true from their perspective AND mine?
Then:
How have I contributed to the situation we're in?
You don't need to manufacture responsibility that isn't yours.
And you don't need to surrender what you believe to be true. Just enter the conversation willing to hold more than one perspective and willing to own your part.
Because the goal of a difficult conversation isn't to determine who gets to be right.
The goal is to get it right, not to be right.
Small shift. Big impact.
