Some thoughts on... Getting out of our Echo Room
An article in Klaus’ organizational behavior class discussed how we naturally gravitate towards people, locations, communities where we hear sentiments aligned with our own perspectives. We naturally step into these Echo Rooms and feel comfortable with the repeated voices and opinions that surround us. It validates our egos and is like harmonious music in the background.
With the Presidential campaign at full crescendo, I realized that in my own Echo Room, the Obama voices seem to be prevalent and overwhelming. The counter perspectives of course exist through the Wall Street Journal or Lou Dobbs on CNN, but it is easy to rationalize these voices away since they are not personalized.
Over the past few weeks though, I found myself in a position to listen to some dissonant perspectives. They were different from the familiar echoes, and they are paraphrased below. The person’s background and the setting provide a little more context.
1. “I voted for Bush twice, and believe he was a terrible President. But I am still
going to vote for McCain because Obama doesn’t have experience.” White woman in her mid-fifties with two kids, married to a retired pharmaceutical industry leader, and having drinks at Atlantic Grill in UES Manhattan, NY.
2. “It doesn’t matter if I vote for Obama, nothing is going to change”. White thirty-something man living in a predominantly Black neighborhood in South Philadelphia, PA.
3. “It feels like a coronation for Obama. He is new and I don’t trust him.” Thirty-year old Bengali-American living in the suburbs of Washington DC.
4. “McCain made a bad choice with Palin but he is still trustworthy”. White thirty something school-teacher living in Long Island, NY.
5. “I could vote for him if only his name were different”. White mid-fifties barman working in Sag Harbor, NY.
Hearing any of these arguments on the screen or print, I would have ready counter points to them. For (1) Obama has run the most well-organized campaign and has the best experts counseling him; (2) Well things can’t get much worse. (3) and (4) McCain’s choice for Palin reveals his poor, untrustworthy, and quixotic decision compared to Obama’s rigorous and well thought-out judgments; (5) His name is different but his background is not that different from John Smith.
But listening to the reasons in a one-on-one circumstance, forced me to reflect on the underlying concerns expressed here. It’s too easy to label all these folks as “biased” or “racist” – that’s not what is playing out. I think the issue is that they fear change – they are unwilling to embrace uncertainty.
These folks are not scared of a black man, they were obviously discussing the issue with me quite earnestly and openly. Instead they fear the unknown as expressed by Obama. Somehow an old, white man in the Oval Office provides more comfort that things won’t change that much; that we need to only make a 90 degree shift in our current policy direction rather than a 180 degree shift.
Many of us may not agree that the change in direction should only be 90 degrees, but fundamentally we can’t relieve these qualms through purely rational arguments. These folks are sending out an emotional call into their Echo Rooms that requires an equally emotional response. By providing a perspective of why change is OK or by sharing our own fears about Obama, we may be able to help the folks on the fence feel more comfortable with the differing viewpoint.
Is it perhaps better to change the sounds in a person’s Echo Room by making distinct and perceptible revisions that are still comfortable, rather than trying to jar them into submission? A rational argument is sometimes too discordant a response
With the Presidential campaign at full crescendo, I realized that in my own Echo Room, the Obama voices seem to be prevalent and overwhelming. The counter perspectives of course exist through the Wall Street Journal or Lou Dobbs on CNN, but it is easy to rationalize these voices away since they are not personalized.
Over the past few weeks though, I found myself in a position to listen to some dissonant perspectives. They were different from the familiar echoes, and they are paraphrased below. The person’s background and the setting provide a little more context.
1. “I voted for Bush twice, and believe he was a terrible President. But I am still
going to vote for McCain because Obama doesn’t have experience.” White woman in her mid-fifties with two kids, married to a retired pharmaceutical industry leader, and having drinks at Atlantic Grill in UES Manhattan, NY.
2. “It doesn’t matter if I vote for Obama, nothing is going to change”. White thirty-something man living in a predominantly Black neighborhood in South Philadelphia, PA.
3. “It feels like a coronation for Obama. He is new and I don’t trust him.” Thirty-year old Bengali-American living in the suburbs of Washington DC.
4. “McCain made a bad choice with Palin but he is still trustworthy”. White thirty something school-teacher living in Long Island, NY.
5. “I could vote for him if only his name were different”. White mid-fifties barman working in Sag Harbor, NY.
Hearing any of these arguments on the screen or print, I would have ready counter points to them. For (1) Obama has run the most well-organized campaign and has the best experts counseling him; (2) Well things can’t get much worse. (3) and (4) McCain’s choice for Palin reveals his poor, untrustworthy, and quixotic decision compared to Obama’s rigorous and well thought-out judgments; (5) His name is different but his background is not that different from John Smith.
But listening to the reasons in a one-on-one circumstance, forced me to reflect on the underlying concerns expressed here. It’s too easy to label all these folks as “biased” or “racist” – that’s not what is playing out. I think the issue is that they fear change – they are unwilling to embrace uncertainty.
These folks are not scared of a black man, they were obviously discussing the issue with me quite earnestly and openly. Instead they fear the unknown as expressed by Obama. Somehow an old, white man in the Oval Office provides more comfort that things won’t change that much; that we need to only make a 90 degree shift in our current policy direction rather than a 180 degree shift.
Many of us may not agree that the change in direction should only be 90 degrees, but fundamentally we can’t relieve these qualms through purely rational arguments. These folks are sending out an emotional call into their Echo Rooms that requires an equally emotional response. By providing a perspective of why change is OK or by sharing our own fears about Obama, we may be able to help the folks on the fence feel more comfortable with the differing viewpoint.
Is it perhaps better to change the sounds in a person’s Echo Room by making distinct and perceptible revisions that are still comfortable, rather than trying to jar them into submission? A rational argument is sometimes too discordant a response