A harmonious path

In order to make any progress in anything we usually have to get the cooperation of other people. One line of reasoning, one that I don’t subscribe to, is that in order to get cooperation we need to persuade, and in order to persuade, we need to argue.

In modern times, stoked by the addiction to all-encompassing media, arguments and debates seem to dominate the entire tone of life. The world wants to beat a path to your brain, a path that is trying to convince you of something. It would be easy for someone to conclude that winning arguments is the sanctioned method of addressing all of life’s situations.

As for me, I’ve never seen anyone win an argument in normal life. By “normal life” I mean outside of a court of law, or a media showcase, or other niches.

Here in normal, everyday life, an argument strikes me as the equivalent of a bar fight: Even if someone prevails, they’d have been better off avoiding the contention in the first place.

One of the most valuable things I learned from Saipan’s business climate was the art of shutting up. I’d sit in on “East meets West” negotiations where the West would use a barrage of points to prove that they were “right.” It’s a hollow victory to win such arguments and come away with no business to show for it, but it’s surprisingly common.

Some of these deals were probably doomed from the beginning, of course, so what was said, and how, and why, probably didn’t ultimately matter. But in a few cases, yikes, being rhetorically “right” probably snuffed some promising projects right there in the meeting room.

Stepping back from the negotiating table, and taking a broader look at things, I’ll offer this take based on my experience in management: If you want a certain behavior from people, then figure out what they already want to do. Then present them with a way to do it.

This is a lot more effective than trying to change their minds about what they want in the first place, or trying to convince them of something that just isn’t sticking.

The ancient sages have weighed into the gig, and, for those of us disinclined to argue, I’ll offer this 2,500 year old wisdom from the Tao Te Ching: “Those who are good do not debate. Those who debate are not good.”

My favorite example of this gig comes from a trip to a university campus. The university had built up a new area. The buildings were put up. The landscaping was installed. The sidewalks were laid out. This was a high-dollar affair, funded by an influential benefactor that the university wanted to impress.

The new area was very beautiful. Well, for a few months, at least. At this point the students’ foot traffic had cut paths in the grass and landscaping. It rained a lot in that area, which made the situation worse. It looked like muddy trenches from a WWI reenactment or something.

Arguments were made. Ropes were put up. Signs went up. Warnings were posted. In summary, they made an eyesore to prevent an eyesore. For all of their authority, however, the administrators could not get the students to stop stomping their routes into the grass.

A wise professor, having surveyed the scene, told me this solution should a similar situation ever present itself again: Hold off on building the sidewalks for a semester, and then pave the paths that the students made.

In other words, don’t tell the people to walk the path you paved. Instead, pave the path the people walked. No talking necessary. No arguing needed. The students and the administration would be working in concert with each other, not against each other.

The professor, being a wily old survivor, knew the temperament of the university’s administration. So he dared not risk its ire by expressing his idea in public.

Still, all was not lost. He could see the scene from his office window. He told me he’d often use it as a reminder of how following a harmonious path can accomplish things that arguing will never be able to do.

Visit Ed Stephens Jr. at EdStephensJr.com. His column runs every Friday.