How to Have a Good Day: Harness the Power of Behavioral Science to Transform Your Working Life pdfdrive com

Step 1: Describe the other person’s point of view as if you really like it.
Be as compelling and generous as you can. The philosopher Daniel Dennett
once put it like this: “You should attempt to re-express your target’s position
so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, ‘Thanks, I wish I’d
thought of putting it that way.’
”
Step 2: Identify all the things you agree on.
Recognizing the areas where
you 
do
agree, even if they’re few, will help build a sense of in-group. Get the
ball rolling with your own suggestions, then make it a collaborative effort by
asking: “What else do we both believe to be true?”
Step 3: Isolate and understand the
true
disagreement.
Define precisely
where you differ. Then go deeper by asking: “Why do we each feel or think
differently about this specific issue?” Surfacing the experience or
assumptions that shape your perspectives helps you understand the nature of
your respective “gorillas.” You may even learn from each other.
Step 4: Explore how both of you could be correct.
Now, you may “agree to
disagree”; it feels easier to do that once you can see where you’re aligned and
why you disagree. But you can also ask: “Is there any way that both of our
perspectives could be somehow correct?” It’s often the case that you’re each
partially right—but perhaps in different situations or circumstances.
Step 5: What can you do now, based on your common ground?
There’s
always something. And the prospect of progress will help both of you feel
good, making it easier to resolve or accept whatever is left on the table.
For example, suppose you’re having an argument with a co-worker on the
right way to get useful customer feedback. You think your company should

---

invite anonymous comments from customers, because you think they’ll be more
candid that way. But your co-worker holds an opposing view: that customers
should put their real names on their comments. So you first show you understand
their side of the argument by outlining the advantages of their approach:
customers will be less tempted to engage in trash talk and will only complain if
they have a genuine grievance, and the company will be able to follow up with
them directly if necessary.
Next, what do you both agree on? The benefits of soliciting more input from
your customers, and that online is the way to do it, and that you want to get a
process in place this month. The only thing you actually disagree on is whether
customers should be anonymous. After a few “whys,” it becomes clear that this
is because you have different views on how readily customers speak their mind:
you fear people won’t speak up without anonymity, while your co-worker fears
that people will speak up too much under the cloak of anonymity. Why? Your
co-worker’s been burned by a terrible social media campaign that backfired.
How could you both be right? Well, customers aren’t all the same. You’re
probably each right regarding different types of customers. This part of the
conversation germinates a few new ideas. It might be possible to design a survey
that gives both options. Perhaps you could get people to proactively opt for
anonymity so that it’s not the default option. You could test out both approaches
for a week each, and see what emerges.
Once you’ve found this common ground, it’s clear that you can get moving on
designing the majority of the process. The anonymity question can be resolved
later; there’s no need to hold everything up because of that. That seems obvious
now. But when people’s brains are in defensive mode, it becomes harder to see
common sense. Small disagreements can end up holding back progress beyond
reason. By contrast, focusing on your agreements leaves each of you better able
to access your wisest selves—and get things done as a result.