Recently I watched an interchange between a political candidate and an advocacy rights group. The media labeled it as a “tense exchange” and the day following aired interviews with members of the group declaring their disappointment in the whole experience.
Admittedly I am not a supporter of that candidate, nor do I pretend to have any understanding of the plight of the social injustices the group is fighting.
But I really thought they both wanted the same thing, and began the conversation on the same side of the issue.
So why did they end up turning in opposite directions?
I think it comes down to being ready to ask the question: okay, so what’s next?
But it’s pretty much impossible to be ready to move on to the solution if we can’t agree on where we are starting.
In my opinion, the candidate made the mistake of simply telling the others what they needed to do next. As well, in my opinion, the group made the mistake of not comprehending the valid if not difficult reality of the advice, which was actually good advice. Instead, they chose to tell the candidate that she didn’t understand.
See the common thread there?