As director of the Leadership Twin Cities program I enjoy all sorts of presentations on our region. Some focus on community issues, others on our business culture and our economic vitality. Curt Johnson, co-founder of CitiStates Group, is a perennial speaker to this group. He maintains that to have any chance at a viable solution to community challenges you better have “all sorts of shoes under the table.”
Today, all of the news and opinions we usually consume are filtered through our own bias and preference. I can choose which newspaper’s websites I will use as my home page and I click on only the stories that are about politicians, business and activities I like. On TV, not only can I choose a station with my political bias, but I can now fast-forward through any segment that doesn’t interest me. In our free time we are likely to gravitate towards like-minded friends and organizations.
Facebook provides a unique opportunity. You connect with people from various times in your life. Immediately you notice how friends from your “past” evolved into interesting people with a wide variety of opinions. What do you do when you read an article or a post that is the polar opposite of your beliefs? Do you ignore it? Do you rush to find the article that proves them wrong? Or, do you try a discussion with an open mind?
Recently I posted my disappointment in the venomous argument over our President addressing American children. After some initial comments posts started flying furiously and soon reached a heated level. Just when I thought the conversation was interesting, my “friend” promptly ended the debate and “un-friended” me. This exchange reinforced my sadness at the tone of the national debate.
What does this mean to a leader? Can you find solutions if you don’t consider other opinions? How can we respectfully listen to various views if we surround ourselves with people, places and things that only reinforce our own beliefs?
It may take more time and it may make you uncomfortable, but give it a try. If you read a “liberal” blog, click over to a “conservative” one. A great place to start is http://www.politicsinminnesota.com/reference/minnesota-blogs , http://www.blognetnews.com/minnesota/ or http://blogs.citypages.com/.
So what about the shoes? Think about your meetings. Does everyone have on wing-tips and high-heels? Does everyone have Birkenstocks? What an interesting conversation you could have if there were flip-flops, tennis shoes, work boots, clogs, go-go boots, Mary-Janes and yes, wing-tips and high heels. Wouldn’t those shoes look great under your backyard picnic table or your office conference room.
When we are bombarded by too much information, we have to have a filtering mechanism of some kind. What we want to believe is often good enough, at least out on the internet.
Face to face meetings are a bit better because at least there isn’t a machine between us. We have to, as you say, spend time looking at each other’s feet. That works for me!
Shame that in this bizee world meetigns like that are harder to arrange all the time.
Interesting discussion – and how it’s evolved. A balance of shoes under the table suggests an atmosphere of varied opinions, backgrounds and classes. We’re always a voluntary participant of that diverse group; we direct our own lives. So, how we engage, what level of leadership we provide, how we direct conversations is key.
What about the shoe print we leave behind as a leader? Are we prepared to influence for the greater of the good regardless of our biased beliefs?
I think even the definition of “fact” has been watered down… mostly because extremists keep repeating lies over and over again until people start to think they are facts.
Global warming is a fact. What we need to do about it is open to various opinions and perspectives.
The absence of WMDs in Iraq and the lack of an Iraq/Al Quida connection are facts. You can still support the war but it doesn’t change facts.
The number of medical expense related bankruptcies in this country is a fact. What to do about it is an interesting debate.
We can go on and on…
Fox and Rush and Hannity may want you to think they are dealing from a factual basis, but there can’t be two sets of facts. We can’t let the concept of “fact” be watered down or we’ll lost our bearings even more.
That is so true Graham! Really – you can usually find your own set of facts to back up what you want to believe. It is getting harder and harder to get two sides to every issue, when really we should be able to consider three sides – or more! Very polarizing.
Very well put but I don’t think I’m as hopefully about Facebook and the rest. I’m seeing social networking tools as reinforcing myopic world views. More often than not your “friends” are from very similar backgrounds or, for professional/social reasons, clam-up as Steve advocated earlier. The sad fact is the rapid growth of very focused media makes it too easy to craft your own set of comfortable “facts”. For the last year I have been reading blogs and magazines from both sides of the aisle. The two sides do not simply have different opinions on the same issue; they’re working from opposing sets of facts. How do we get our facts straight so that we are at least talking about the same thing?
Wendy: I never thought of political (or even social) differences in the way you presented it – but now that I read your blog, it seems very obvious. Thanks for the commentary – I know I tend to read articles and watch stations with which I “agree”. I will make it my personal goal to read and watch others (and not stop reading after the first paragraph or throw a shoe at the tv when I get info that I don’t like.)
Great insight – keep it up! Joanie
I actually think that we do a disservice to ourselves when we brand subjects like “politics, religion, abortion, same sex marriage” as out of bounds in polite conversation. We need to learn to talk to each other and listen to each other without outrage, insults, or offense.
Politics and religion are important parts of our lives…. and we should be able to have rational, constructive conversations about these topics without having things get uncomfortable. When you take these topics off the table… it doesn’t matter what shoes are underneath…. we will get no closer to understanding each other.
I’m somewhat confused with the direction of this article. The title suggests (I’m assuming) shoes under the table in a work atmosphere. Yet the body of the article relates to Facebook and politics. The only hot issues missing in this blog are abortion and religion! Whenever i’m in a group setting (personal or professional) I SHUT MY MOUTH on Politics, Relgion, Abortion, Same Sex Marriage. These are PERSONAL issues and should stay personal–especially when brought up at work.
What shoes do I want under my table? A balance of people. The world needs Liberals, Conservatives, Whites, Blacks, Muslims, Christains, Gay and Heterosexual. Balance people.
A very insightful commentary on the state of conversations today. Politics are probably the most visible – people see no other viewpoint than their own and “unfriend” those that disagree. Yet, less than 30 years ago, people did the same when their views on religion, sexuality or race differed. Today it is not ok to be judgmental on those subjects, yet it has become ok to be truly “right-wing” or “liberally biased”. Thank you for stating what many are thinking … there must be places where we agree. There must be some truth in what our opponents are saying. At the very least, there is much to be learned by listening to both sides.