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

Typing on a computer
person using laptop

America Needs a Digital Equity Policy, Not Just Tech Innovation

The United States invests billions in artificial intelligence research and development‚ semiconductor fabrication‚ and next-generation connectivity. Yet millions of Americans cannot consistently access the internet or afford the devices needed to submit an online application for social services or a job application․ This is not an oversight․ It is a policy choice that is costing the country dearly․

Connectivity is a floor, not a ceiling:

Keep ReadingShow less
The election voting process, bidding, hands raised up with papers

Confidence in U.S. elections has fallen to 55% ahead of the 2026 midterms. The real risk isn't who wins — it's whether the loser accepts it.

Svetlana Shamshurina/Getty Images

The Real Test of the 2026 Midterms Comes After the Vote

Less than three months before Americans vote in the 2026 midterms, a federal judge on August 11 blocked the U.S. Postal Service from implementing part of President Donald Trump’s executive order tightening mail-in voting rules. The ruling came amid an intensifying fight over how November’s elections will be administered. That fight underscores a deeper problem: the real question in American politics is no longer simply who wins the next election, but whether large numbers of people will still accept the result when their side loses.

Elections in the United States were supposed to settle arguments. One side wins, the other accepts defeat, and the country moves on. That quiet agreement is under growing pressure as the midterms approach. Control of Congress still matters, but beneath that contest lies a more consequential question: if the outcome goes against one of the two major political camps, will that camp still trust the process that declared it the loser?

Keep ReadingShow less
 Unrecognizable doctor prescribing pharmacy to patient.

After a 30-year decline, U.S. abortions are rising again. Texas data suggests bans may shift where abortions happen — not whether they do.

Natalia Gdovskaia/Getty Images

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Bridging the Gap

Introduction

We have spent decades arguing about abortion policy on ideological grounds. I think we now have an opportunity to step back, look at what actually happened, and ask a more fundamental question: What policies actually reduce the number of abortions?

I believe that is a question on which pro-life and pro-choice people should be able to agree. Whatever our differences about abortion itself, surely, we can agree that fewer abortions would be a good outcome.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less