There is no specific recipe or “cookbook” for creating common ground and countering the forces of polarization, but there are examples of actions that can be taken and that can inspire a creative process of customizing actions for an individual, for a family, for a group or organization, or for a community. There are five examples noted for each. They are just examples, so do not be limited by them. They are also simply stated, so more exploration will be required for most of them to make them effective.

Individual Actions

• Ensure accurate disagreement. Ensure the credibility of data and information. State the issues accurately and fairly to avoid caricatures and protect trust.
• Practice interest-based disagreement – their interests – and yours. Avoid the trap of leaping to positions set in concrete and uncover the interests that really matter. If there are positions in play, break free of the positions and determine what interests the positions might gain and focus there.
• Ground your approach in diversified information sources. Avoid misinformation, particularly from social media, by using multiple sources and viewpoints that don’t rely on each other and that don’t rely on inflaming people to “get eyeballs.”
• “Go slow to go fast.” Be disciplined in gathering data and information, assessing and managing emotional reactions, and understanding the interests behind positions. Social media in particular rewards speed, certainty and emotional escalation.
• Build relationships outside areas of disagreement. If we know each other in many ways, we will be much less likely to be reactive, make negative assumptions, and refuse to let go of rigid assumptions and positions.

Family Actions

• Encourage curiosity and thoughtfulness vs. reactive “tribalism.” It’s easy for families to reinforce tribalism (or split into different tribes), so encouraging curiosity about others and their needs and interests can be extraordinarily valuable. Curiosity about issues and institutions and how things get done can also counter reactive tribalism.
• Orient members to the common ground we stand on. Get past the disagreement and conflicts to the underlying common ground of being citizens of the American democracy. We can still disagree, but from a base of common ground.
• Teach disagreement as a skill with lots of applications. Don’t assume family members know how to effectively and productively disagree. We aren’t born with those skills, and few organizations teach it to their members. “This is how we disagree in our family” is a good opening phrase. It will then be applicable throughout family members’ lives.
• “Model the way” – listen, ask honest questions, admit uncertainty, disagree with dignity and compassion, focus on underlying common ground. Family members can model the way to protect the relationships in the family and the family can also model the way for others.
• Ensure family bonds and identity are not tied too tightly to political positions. Healthy family members see each other beyond political beliefs and stances, although that is often not easy. The reality is that we are more than our politics and we have created family bonds and rituals and traditions beyond them (in most cases).

Groups and Organizations

• Model common ground and “firm beliefs with flexible humanity” relative to pursuit of the mission. Healthy groups and organizations have common ground as well as areas of disagreement, so consciously modeling how to stand on that common ground and deal with differences is invaluable.
• Create norms for disagreements and teach the requisite skills. Dealing with disagreements productively and skillfully is essential for high performance in a group or organization and pursuing the mission (common ground). Establishing healthy disagreement as a norm and teaching the requisite skills is essential.
• Develop and reward bridge-building. This can be bridge-building within the group or organization or between groups and organizations. It can range from relationship building and conflict resolution to collaborative problem-solving.
• Structure disagreements. Structure can include place, time, facilitation, modeling, skill building, goals, trustworthy information, etc. The goals can range from effectiveness and efficiency to safety and risk-taking. Disagreements are normal and natural. Structuring them effectively is, unfortunately neither and has to be consciously built in.
• Start at the top and “expand the circle.” Starting at or near the top and then engaging others is usually the best approach in groups or organizations for a number of reasons. However, this can start with any individual and “infect” others – but the greatest leverage for establishing common ground and effective disagreements is at the top.

Communities

• Strengthen and encourage engagement in local civic life. There is a surprising range of roles that can be designed, from large to small. For instance, school boards, neighborhood associations, town meetings, community improvement projects, block watch or representation, etc. Civic education – formal and informal – can also fall into this category.
• Focus on and develop spaces where people meet to support healthy disagreement. There are a number of factors that contribute to supportive spaces – from transportation and accessible and comfortable interactive spaces to meetings and events sponsored and supported by community organizations and community sponsored “rules of the road” that guide healthy disagreement. If the spaces don’t exist, it’s hard to effectively engage people in healthy creative interactions.
• Focus on solvable local problems. There is a wide array of local problems that require collaboration and can provide common ground. For example, housing, transportation, drug use, education opportunities outside of school, access to healthcare, public safety, economic opportunities, etc. These are problems where people can find common ground and where healthy disagreement can be acknowledged and pursued.
• Leaders of all kinds “model the way.” These leaders can be in formal or informal roles, but they need to consciously use their roles and capabilities to build common ground in their spheres of influence. This is tougher than it sounds, but it is also much more important than it seems at first glance. This is a matter of leaders understanding their significance and very consciously determining what they want to model and where.
• Confront the factors that undermine or distort issues – This can include much of the media, polarizing political leaders, historical events and their memories, etc. These kinds of distorting factors often evolve in the “grey areas” of community life and need to be brought into the light in order to really see them and address them. Polarization is powerful in the dark. Common ground needs to be developed in the light – and directly.