Last week on the “Beau aan tafel” show, Minister Ernst Kuipers did his best to defend the cabinet’s COVID-19 phased-out policy. With several opponents at the table, he struggled to find the right approach. It was tricky. Suddenly, he made a brilliant move. He took the initiative to play “cabinet” at the table and assigned everyone the “role” of a minister or stakeholder: someone from the hospitality industry, someone from Education, someone from Healthcare, someone representing the Security Council, the OMT, and so on. As they went around the table, everyone’s individual arguments were crystal clear and firm. But they couldn’t find common ground. Afterward, Ernst was able to assert his position on the optimal pace for easing the measures.

Decision-making can sometimes be difficult at your conference table, too. It turns into a contest over who’s right. For many, it’s a game of proving they’re right while still feeling frustrated. Everyone’s interests and perspectives matter, but finding common ground is difficult. Selective perception plays a role here, as does an aversion to the opposing side. It’s a case of one stain piling on top of another.

Our selection determines our position

We’re all familiar with the phenomenon where, if you’re driving a red car, you start noticing more and more red cars around you. Selective perception and other psychological filters influence what we see—and thus, often, which version of the truth we choose. As a result, we fail to see other aspects of reality.

At our tables, we often start by vigorously defending our own interests⁽¹⁾. And so do the others, with just as much fervor. And although the differences we need to bridge are often not that great at their core, the damage is already done by the exaggeration. The hostility this provokes only reinforces our own sense of being right.

Even when discussing “no-brainers”—such as inclusivity, for example—the so-called “cautionary voices” don’t help us. With their “woke” or “the seven checkboxes of the white heterosexual man” viewpoints, for example, they certainly hit the nail on the head, but overzealousness quickly misses the mark. (P.S.: For instance, I’ve never understood why there are gender-neutral restrooms in public buildings; I mainly see hygienic reasons for them.)

Don’t go overboard

So even activism has its own “parish.” All in all, that excessive input makes it difficult to make the right decision or set the right priorities—no matter how obvious the optimal solution may be. “Together” is more than the sum of its parts, but it’s also the hardest verb there is. The first step toward a shared perspective is to give something up—a part of your own sense of being right. Let go of a part of your truth. That could be a belief, a habit, a way of working, or even your IT system,…

But at the very least, let’s avoid going overboard. That allows us to make the most of the leeway we have on the core issues we already agree on. That way, we can quickly reach the best possible decision. Not a compromise—involving give-and-take and negotiation—but the optimal solution. The best possible outcome, having heard everyone’s views, while recognizing that we can’t please everyone.

On Beau’s show, Ernst Kuijpers demonstrated that he could handle that process sensibly and credibly. Maybe we should try that approach “at home” too—play “cabinet.”

^{(1) in} the sense of “standing up for one’s own interests”