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

The Domestic Sting: Why the Tariff Bill is Arriving at the American Door
photo of dollar coins and banknotes
Photo by Mathieu Turle on Unsplash

The Domestic Sting: Why the Tariff Bill is Arriving at the American Door

America's tariff experiment, now nearly a year old, is proving more painful than its architects anticipated. What began as a bold stroke to shield domestic industries and force concessions from trading partners has instead delivered a slow-burning rise in prices, complicating the Federal Reserve's battle against inflation. As the policy grinds on, economists warn that the real damage lies ahead, with consumers and businesses absorbing costs that erode purchasing power and economic momentum. This is not the quick victory promised but a protracted burden that risks entrenching higher prices just as the economy seeks stability.

The tariffs, rolled out in phases since early March 2025, have jacked up the average import duty from 2 percent to around 17 percent. Imported goods prices have climbed 4 percent since then, outpacing the 2 percent rise in domestic equivalents. Items like coffee, which the United States cannot produce at scale, have seen the sharpest hikes, alongside products from heavily penalized countries such as China. Retailers and importers, far from passing all costs abroad as hoped, have shouldered much of the load initially, limiting immediate sticker shock. Yet daily pricing data from major chains reveal a creeping pass-through: imported goods up 5 percent overall, domestic up 2.5 percent. Cautious sellers absorb some hit to avoid losing market share, but this restraint is fading as tariffs are embedded in supply chains.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a paper that says "Ranked-Choice" with options listed below.
Image generated by IVN staff.

Why Mathematicians Love Ranked Choice Voting

The Institute for Mathematics and Democracy (IMD) has released what may be the most comprehensive empirical study of ranked choice voting ever conducted. The 66-page report analyzes nearly 4,000 real-world ranked ballot elections, including some 2,000 political elections, and more than 60 million simulated ones to test how different voting methods perform.

The study’s conclusion is clear. Ranked choice voting methods outperform traditional first-past-the-post elections on nearly every measure of democratic fairness.

Keep ReadingShow less
Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less