Leadership teams increasingly have to deal with strong opinions on both sides of issues when working within the team and with external stakeholders. This should not be surprising considering historical trends. Since the 1980s, partisan political polarization has become a defining feature of our political system. Today, Democratic and Republican members of the U.S. Congress are further apart ideologically as measured by roll call voting than they have been since measurement began in the 1880s (Lewis, 2023). And at least when it comes to national issues, state and local officials once thought to be insulated from these debates are aligned with their party’s position, even more so than with their constituents’ beliefs (Lee et al., 2023).

Debates over policy are often tinged by increasingly negative feeling toward the “other party.” According to one study, more than 80% of Republicans say Democrats are “brainwashed” and “hateful,” while more than 80% of Democrats say the same about Republicans (Hawkins et al., 2022). This risks avoiding the other side or seeing them as different or immoral (Finkel et al., 2020).

It’s not surprising, then, that polarization has spread to K-12 education, as shown in disagreements over books, bathrooms, and how history is taught. The intrusion of political issues and opinions was cited as the top source of stress for superintendents of large districts in spring 2024 and the fifth most common source for those in small districts, though, happily, this is down from 2023 (Schwartz & Diliberti, 2024).

In this landscape, leadership teams — like all teams — are likely to experience disagreements and conflicts. Preventing or avoiding them entirely is not possible, and not even desirable. Having team members with a diversity of perspectives is an asset. When those team members listen to each other, capitalize on each other’s skills, and learn and grow together, they stretch their thinking and ultimately get more done for the benefit of students. Facilitating that kind of stretching takes planning and skill. Here are some steps you can take to make the most of diverse perspectives on your team, along with reflection questions to move your work forward.

Know and respect each member’s values.

Values drive people’s behavior in every setting, personal and professional. In schools, values are visible in many ways, including the way people interact in classrooms and hallways and in the student work posted on bulletin boards and websites. In any setting, values exert an influence, whether or not the values are stated explicitly.

This can make group dynamics complex. When people hold values in common, those values can become a rallying cry to unite everyone. But when people hold differing values, this can easily result in polarization. A leader needs to know and respect the values of all team members and not inadvertently create conflict for members with their values.

The key here is to never assume what people’s values are and instead seek to learn about them. Once those values are known, the leader might have members develop ways that their goals can be furthered by achieving the team’s goals. But perhaps most important is to not inadvertently create conflict for members between the team’s work and their personal goals. For example, if people value teamwork, the leader shouldn’t set up competitions. If team members value work/life balance, team meetings should take place during the school day and not interfere with personal family time.

Agree on your vision, goals, and nonnegotiables.

A vision is an aspirational and inspirational statement of a desired future. It is a galvanizing statement that can be referenced as things get more polarized to remind the group of its larger aims. It is important that all group members agree on the vision statement and its wording. It becomes the basis of the actions you will take and reflects the values of the team and the larger community.

Once you have accomplished that, it is important to lay out — upfront — anything that is bedrock and cannot be compromised. Stating this up front  will prevent the team from spinning its wheels considering options that cannot be changed. Everything else can be negotiated.

Understand where you agree and disagree — and agree to disagree.

Many teams cop out and say that “our similarities are greater than our differences.” That is hopefully the case, but sweeping differences under the rug denies the reality of the situation and deprives the team of the value such divergent perspectives provide. It is important to surface the areas where you agree and disagree and to understand why you agree or disagree. If agreement cannot be reached, agree to disagree, but in a respectful way.

Although it might be tempting to accept lip service agreements, this is a mistake. In an environment where people disagree, some might choose to say they agree or disengage rather than pursue conflict. This conflict will only surface later and derail your work.

The leader and team members might address this up front by having a ground rule specifying that people should always engage and surface their opinions (in constructive language), as opposed to staying silent.

Another way to avoid lip service agreements is for the leader to ask questions that are grounded in action. For example: “How might this play out?” Talking about the implications is clarifying for all and demonstrates that team members are aware of the results, not just the words.

Avoid trigger words.

To lessen the chance that those on the team, and external stakeholders, will misinterpret what you say, it is important to think carefully about the language you use. What do others hear when you describe the work? If certain words trigger polarized reactions, it might make sense to avoid those words and be more specific with your language (Leading Now, 2024).

This is not an attempt to deceive anyone, but a choice to use different words — perhaps more specific words — to be better understood. An advantage of avoiding trigger words is that when there is division, you will know that it is about the activity itself and not the words. Knowing that sets you up to consider your options.

Ensure benefits for all concerned, even if differentiated.

An important way to avoid polarization is to ensure that there are benefits for everyone, even if they are different in scope for different groups. The benefits should reflect the values of the team and ensure that everyone benefits from the proposed work, albeit it in different ways.

Polarization sometimes results when people think something is being taken away from them to accommodate the new work. The point here is for everyone to benefit. In some cases, the team will have to think about what benefits those might be for those not directly affected by the proposed new work.

Questions for reflection and discussion

The following questions can help your team capitalize on differing viewpoints. You can discuss them together or team leaders can reflect on them individually or in pairs to help determine the next steps with the team.

1. What values do your team members hold most dear? Are any held in common? Are any in conflict?
2. What are the shared vision and goals?
3. What is the bedrock of the team’s work that cannot be compromised?
4. How can you demonstrate that your district or school provides benefits for all groups, even though those benefits may differ based on need?

Your responses to these questions, along with the strategies described above, can help your team build a sound foundation for dealing with polarized issues. You’ll still need to decide on your team’s stance on issues, e.g., whether to stay the course, change your language, negotiate an alternative, or pause, but making the most of diverse perspectives will help you make a well-informed decision.