Larry D. Lauer

A reality of institutional politics is that we generally hear what we want to hear.   Most of us hold preconceived ideas about many issues, and what we hear from others just reinforces what we already believe. 

Communication researchers call this reality “selective perception.” 

Democrats become better Democrats when they hear Republicans speak. And Republicans become better Republicans when they hear Democrats speak. This type of polarization also occurs with many of our issues in the institutional workplace.  An example of polarization is the use of the  word “marketing.”

For many, the word means “commercialization,” and whenever it is heard in the context of the academy, the perception is that the consequence will be to turn the institution into a retail sales organization. The word “brand” is another example of this kind of selective perception. 

In Lesson 48, and elsewhere, I argue that it’s a waste of time to focus on converting detractors. It is also true that some people who have preconceived ideas are not totally committed detractors, and that over time they might change their minds. In other words, they are “on the fence” with respect to their opinion.

We are open to changing our minds when new information appears and begins to confuse us. We then seek more information to resolve this confusion. This state of uncertainty is often called “cognitive dissonance,” and we all seem to have an inner drive to resolve it.

The political strategy in this situation is to raise key questions, describe the complexity of the moment, and then articulate the best alternative solutions… those, of course, that support our objectives. Open forums, staff meetings, invited meetings, and other opportunities for dialogue, can be created for this purpose.

To summarize, committed detractors should mostly be ignored. It is a waste of time to try to convert them. But many people are only “on the fence,” and it is possible over time, through thoughtful, patient and persistent dialogue, to change their minds.