When Certainty Opens Up

Jul 15

Last week at book group with my sisters (there are six of us, so a book group was inevitable at some point!) I experienced something remarkable. We had decided to just read a classic short story this time, so no one really expected a deep conversation. My oldest sister shared her interpretation of the story as a tragedy, an interpretation that probably lines up with a lot of literary critics.

And we were about to give that a pass and just go back to talking about our lives when my youngest sister said, “I don’t see it that way.” She proceeded to offer a completely different way of reading the story.

There is a version of this moment that happens all the time in work meetings. Someone challenges the expected read on a situation or the direction the group is moving. In effect, someone says, “I don’t see it that way.”

And in that moment, something happens internally. For me, it was not especially flattering.

I felt a little annoyed, because it seemed obvious that my oldest sister’s perspective was the whole point of the story. I felt a little embarrassed for my younger sister, because it seemed like she had missed something the rest of us could see. And I felt a little nervous about what might happen next, because my family doesn’t historically do “disagreement” very well.

Does that sound familiar—that mix of uncomfortable emotions that arises with different perspectives?

That mix is worth noticing because what happens internally rarely stays internal for long. It becomes our tone of voice, our facial expression, the questions we ask. It shows up as the amount of legitimacy we are willing to give to another person’s point of view.

Back to my book group. . . our conversation was awkward for a few minutes. My youngest sister offered her interpretation, and the rest of us tested it against the more obvious one. We pointed to places where the tragic reading seemed stronger. And she didn’t back down! She agreed that the common reading was one way to see the story, but she didn’t want to accept it as the only way. To her, it was not a generous enough reading of the character.

That phrase stayed with me—not generous enough. She wasn’t arguing about plot but revealing something about the kind of meaning she was willing to make. She was asking us to consider whether the most obvious interpretation was also the most complete one.

And then someone asked a question. I don’t remember the exact wording, and I’m not sure it was a perfect question. But it gave her perspective enough legitimacy for the rest of us to stop defending our own. It created just enough space for us to become curious.

That was the hinge that turned the conversation. It happened when the conversation shifted from “Is she right or wrong?” to “What is she seeing that we aren’t?”

And that’s the move that opens up certainty into possibility. It doesn’t happen by forcing people to abandon their perspective or asking them to pretend they don’t have a strong read. It never happens by smoothing over the disagreement too quickly. Certainty opens when an interpretation becomes visible as one interpretation. When people realize, “There may be more here than I can see from where I am standing.” In our conversation, once that happened, the discussion changed.

Now, of course, our conversation didn’t involve a strategic decision, a performance concern, a strained partnership, or a disagreement about what should happen next. It was a short story in a family book group. But lower-stakes moments can reveal the structure for approaching a higher-stakes situation.

So what did we do? How did we turn an awkward disagreement into genuine appreciation for my younger sister’s point of view?

First, she had to risk offering a different view. It’s hard for her to voice a different opinion, especially with her five opinionated older sisters! Telling someone to do that might sound simple, but there’s a social cost to saying, “I don’t see it that way” that can hold people back. My sister had enough courage to say it anyway.
Second, the different viewpoint had to survive the first round of testing. We didn’t immediately understand it, so we pushed back. We compared it to the more expected interpretation. But she stayed with it—without escalating or turning the disagreement into a fight for status.
Third, someone asked a question that made her perspective legitimate enough to explore. This may be the most important move for teams. A question doesn’t have to be brilliant to change the conversation. It just has to interrupt the rush toward dismissal. It has to signal, “There may be something here worth considering.”
Finally, we slowed down long enough for the meaning underneath the perspective to emerge. We ended up talking about why each of us saw the story the way we did, how our own lives made certain meanings more available to us than others.

The real shift happens when the questions become, “What are you noticing that I’m missing?” and “What experience is shaping your perspective?” Those questions don’t require agreement, just enough steadiness to remain interested.

You might be thinking, “Yeah, but it’s never that easy at work.” And you might be right.

Because there’s one step my family book group didn’t need, but workplace teams often do; eventually, the broadened perspective has to inform action. Once more of the picture is visible, the group still has to ask, “Given what we now understand, what do we do next?” Perspective-taking is not the same as endless discussion.

But those perspectives can inform a more complete decision. The goal is to make a decision with more reality in the room. That’s the real value of opening up certainty.

There’s a difference between saying, “This is what’s happening,” and saying, “This is what I can see from where I stand.”

The second statement doesn’t weaken the perspective. It makes it usable, leaving enough room for other people to add what they see and to test the story together. Enough room for the conversation to become more than a contest between fixed conclusions.

In a work setting, or even in your own family book group, how do you get past the sense of “I know I’m right about this?” Not by shutting down others for having a different point of view.

You get past it by learning to hold your own point of view with enough openness that something else can also enter.

When Certainty Opens Up: Q&A

Why do disagreements feel uncomfortable even in low-stakes situations?

Disagreement can trigger emotions such as annoyance, defensiveness, embarrassment, or anxiety because differing perspectives challenge our sense of certainty and can feel like a threat to belonging, competence, or identity.

What happens when someone says, “I don’t see it that way”?

A different perspective interrupts the dominant narrative and creates a choice: dismiss it, defend against it, or become curious about what the other person might be seeing that you are missing.

Why is certainty a challenge in conflict?

Certainty can narrow our perspective and make us believe our interpretation is the only valid one. When that happens, curiosity decreases and conversations become debates about who is right rather than explorations of what is true.

How can leaders become more open to different perspectives?

Leaders can practice holding their views as interpretations rather than objective reality. Instead of asking, “Am I right?” they can ask, “What might I not be seeing?”

What role does curiosity play in difficult conversations?

Curiosity creates space for learning. It shifts the conversation from defending conclusions to exploring perspectives, making it easier to understand different experiences, assumptions, and concerns.

Why is it important for people to voice different opinions?

Organizations and teams benefit when people feel safe enough to challenge prevailing assumptions. Different perspectives often reveal blind spots, uncover risks, and lead to more informed decisions.

What helps a different perspective gain legitimacy?

Often, it starts with a thoughtful question. Questions such as “What are you noticing that I'm missing?” or “Can you help me understand your perspective?” create enough space for ideas to be explored rather than dismissed.

How can teams move from disagreement to better decisions?

The goal is not endless discussion or forced agreement. The goal is to broaden understanding so that decisions are made with more reality, more perspectives, and more complete information in the room.

What are some useful questions to ask during a disagreement?

Helpful questions include:

What are you noticing that I'm missing?
What experience is shaping your perspective?
What leads you to see it that way?
Is there another interpretation we should consider?

What is the main leadership lesson from this article?

Strong leaders hold their viewpoints with conviction and openness at the same time. They remain confident enough to contribute their perspective and curious enough to learn from others.

What is Conflict EQ?

Conflict EQ is the capacity to stay curious, grounded, and open when perspectives differ. It helps leaders move beyond certainty, explore multiple realities, and navigate disagreement in ways that build understanding, trust, and better decisions.