Imagine this: you are conducting a research meeting in an attempt to gain critical insight before an upcoming executive presentation. You are following the 95-5 Rule, listening actively, and asking good questions. You are on a roll, when suddenly your contact says something you vehemently disagree with, like:

• “My company is doing a great job with _____.” (You think they are doing a terrible job.)
• “My department needs to do more _____.” (You think they should stop doing it altogether.)
• “The current government is doing so well.” (You think they are doing terribly.)
• “The current government is doing so badly.” (You think they are doing a great job.)

In any case, whatever they said (it can be about business, politics, entertainment, sports…), you really disagree with their perspective. What do you do now?

It’s unlikely that any of us would actually engage in a debate with the contact on their statement. We instinctively know that this would be a mistake, and that it would be an unwinnable argument. It would likely affect our relationship with them moving forward. However, a big challenge for us at this point is not to argue mentally. It would be easy to get sidetracked and think about why they are wrong and what we would say if we got an opportunity to debate them. Doing this takes us out of our active listening mode and throws us off track. 

What should we do instead? Dive in. Ask questions to uncover why they feel the way they do. Treat it as you would with any other research meeting topic and try to learn more. You don’t have to agree with someone; you just need to understand them.

This is a good reminder of the value of having multiple sources for research meetings. If we are only meeting with one person, we will only get one set of insights. More is definitely better!