Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Ask Joe: Building bridges with patience and compassion

Ask Joe: Building bridges with patience and compassion

Hi, Joe.

I appreciated your last post, where you gave the manager of a business advice on how to help their staff overcome the tensions caused by polarization. I like what you say, but I still think people are people and they are not going to change. What are your thoughts on this?


Realistic

Hey, Realistic.

I think it’s great that you took the time to read my last post, think about it and then reach out to share your truth on the matter. What you did is exactly what we need more of! You listened to someone’s viewpoints, contemplated them, recognized where there was alignment in our facts and perspectives, and also clarified where there seemed to be differences. You then made the effort to share your truth. I appreciate that by writing to me and being curious, you are giving me the benefit of the doubt before you judge me, or even condemn me, if you don’t see it exactly the same way.

This is what will lead to new, inclusive solutions and deeper levels of bridge-building. This may sound obvious – in fact, it is. But in our hyper-sensitive, polarized, oppositional climate, we seem to forget it.

I actually see it the same way you do, Realistic. The goal of my advice in my last post was to help the manager find a hopeful path towards team building in order to cut through the confusion of the animosity. The exercise I offered was simply a starting point to foster productivity and a more amicable work environment; not to require people to change. And that should be the primary focus when at work: It is your job to do your job; it is not your job to change people.

Actually, not only at work, but with family members, friends or anyone who holds different views – it is not your job to change them. However, I do think it is possible with compassion and curiosity to appeal to the hearts of others and, through the messy conversations, find ways where both of you transform some of your viewpoints and find common ground.

Here’s how I see it: People don’t change; they transform. And what transforms are someone’s viewpoints, habits and patterns. A person is not their viewpoints, habits and pattern; they have viewpoints, habits and patterns. Asking someone to transform what they have is far easier than asking them to transform who they are. Expecting someone to change rarely leads to new solutions or outcomes; supporting someone to transform on their own time and in their own way does.

I have spoken to various groups on a topic I call, “How your need to be right is sabotaging your mission.” I’ve never seen a situation when you say to someone, “You are wrong!” and they instantly change. And yet, we still keep using this as a strategy for social reform. In order to shift this, the question to ask is, “Do you want to be right, or do you want to be effective?”

What is required to bring about this kind of reconciliation or shift in perspective is creating a space of safety and trust and meeting people where they currently are. That is why I believe the process of naming our highest core values is a strong starting point to shifting a work culture. It provides a neutral way for all involved to meet each other where they are, connect with the hearts of one another, and foster a deeper level of trust and safety. From there, anything is possible!

Yes, Realistic, as a concept this sounds very simple and ideal. Implementing it may feel daunting or even dangerous. It requires perseverance, courage and what I call utilizing the “skills and strategies of the heart” that increase effectiveness in bridging and diminishes opposition and breakdown of relationships. And above all, what is needed is patience.

Take it one step at a time,

Joe

Learn more about Joe Weston and his work here. Make sure to c heck out Joe’s bestselling book Fierce Civility: Transforming our Global Culture from Polarization to Lasting Peace, published March 2023.

To Ask Joe, please submit questions to: AskJoe@Fulcrum.us.

Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less