What One PBS Show Can Teach Leaders

A PBS show called Breaking the Deadlock does something surprisingly rare in both politics and business.

Watching it recently, it is hard not to think about what business leaders, at every level or organization, could take from its premise.

Aaron Tang, a law professor at UC Davis, takes Americans with opposing views on divisive issues and puts them in the same room. The goal is not to debate for the “win” which is what tends to happen. It is to constructively work through a problem together.  As one example, the recent episode I watched centered on online gambling (though the show covers a wide range of current topics).

For anyone interested in how people actually change their minds, it’s an interesting moderated framework.

The Premise

Participants walk in certain they will never budge on their views yet frequently leave having reconsidered their position. Not because they were argued into it, but because the format created conditions where listening was the expectation, not the exception.

Tang asks questions more than he makes statements, surfacing what people actually value underneath their stated positions. He introduces hypothetical situations with top leaders that alter perspectives in ways that make someone think a lot harder about where they actually stand. Questions such as:

• If a decision directly affects your son/daughter’s future, would your position change?

• If the person most impacted was your neighbor — or someone you know well — would that change how you approach or present your position?

• When the stakes become very personal (your reputation, family, livelihood), at what point does your opinion start to bend?

Compelling situations are layered in, at a pretty rapid pace, and the room has to then discuss if/why they hold the same view - or why not.

The Takeaway

The parallel to business leadership for many organizations is clear. In most cases, meetings often reflect whoever holds the most authority or speaks with the most confidence. Typically, your more reserved folks stay silent. Others go with the flow to avoid disrupting the process. And yet both groups may carry the most relevant perspective or experience to the table.

People closest to a problem, or most affected by a decision, often go unheard simply because the conditions for that conversation were never created.

Tang's approach to the ‘point-counterpoint’ model is brilliantly simple and, admittedly, it’s not easy to accomplish. But he certainly takes us on a ride to imagine – and reimagine.

What might open up if the framing changed before the discussion even started, and we put all facets of a decision on the table?

I'm not sure, but there are learnings there and it's one show worth the watch.