We assume too much about other people.
We assume their intent, their rigidity, their unwillingness to listen. We assume they have already made up their minds, that they are uninterested in a real conversation, that they won’t hear us no matter how well we articulate our point. But what if they were more open than we believed? What if, in the midst of a disagreement, we weren’t facing a locked door but a door left slightly ajar – one that only required a little curiosity, a little effort, to push open?
Conflict, at its core, is not the enemy.
The real obstacle is the invisible wall we build around it – the assumption that the other person is unwilling or incapable of engaging in good faith. But people are far more complex than our assumptions allow. They are not merely their arguments, their reactions, or even their past behaviors. They are, like us, filled with contradictions, shifting perspectives, and unseen hesitations. And if we start from a place of assuming possibility instead of impossibility, we change the entire dynamic of the conversation.
There’s a fascinating paradox in human interaction: the more someone feels unheard, the more rigidly they defend their position. Yet the moment they feel understood, their defenses lower. It’s a dynamic we’ve all encountered but rarely leverage to its full potential. If we go into a conversation expecting hostility, we tend to meet resistance. But if we enter with curiosity – genuine curiosity, not the performative kind – we signal something different. We create space for an exchange rather than a battle. And in that space, something unexpected can happen: mutual understanding.
The challenge is that people don’t always recognize our curiosity. They assume we are just waiting for our turn to talk. They assume our questions are traps. And so, if we want to break this cycle, we must make our curiosity visible. We must ask real questions, not rhetorical ones. We must show – through patience, through listening, through our choice of words – that we are not simply waiting for an opportunity to counter, but that we actually want to understand.
This is as true in leadership as it is in everyday life.
A leader who engages with their team in a way that acknowledges, rather than dismisses, their perspectives builds an environment where people feel safe expressing themselves. And when people feel safe, they engage in good faith. In negotiations, in business, in social movements – wherever people clash over ideas – there is always a choice: reinforce the walls or look for the open door.
None of this means abandoning our own convictions. Understanding does not require agreement. It does not mean giving up our beliefs, but rather strengthening them through exposure to new perspectives. The most compelling arguments are made not by those who bulldoze opposing views, but by those who demonstrate that they have considered them fully.
Most people are not as closed as they seem. Most conversations are not as futile as we assume. The next time you find yourself in a disagreement, take a moment. Ask a question – not the kind meant to lead someone to your conclusion, but one that genuinely seeks to understand theirs. If they are truly immovable, you’ll know soon enough.
But more often than not, the door you thought was closed was only waiting for a knock.
Especially now, in these strange days, when conversations feel more like battlegrounds than bridges, when disagreement turns to division, and when our confidence in dialogue is fading – we must remember: the responsibility to change this starts with us. It’s easy to blame the times, the culture, the noise. But every interaction is a chance to shift the tide. We don’t control the world, but we do control how we show up in it. If we want a world where people feel seen, valued, and heard, we must lead – choosing patience over impatience, curiosity over judgment, recognition over dismissal.
The work begins with us.