Many professions have attempted to provide advice on how best to deal with “difficult people,” which often includes staying calm, controling emotions, taking time to listen, and attempting to find common ground.

These suggestions might work for some, but others require additional approaches to reach resolution. When asked for advice by an overwhelmed party, I do offer two alternative recommendations. Both are based on common cultural values faced with confrontation and the desire to reach resolution as quickly as possible:

First: I suggest stepping back and reevaluating what it is they really want to accomplish. Then I urge them to reconsider how they can meet that goal by simply asking, “is there a way around the difficult person to achieve what you really want and be strategic, rather than confrontational?”

Second: I questions why the issue must be resolved immediately. I pose this because change is inevitable and what seems intolerable at the moment can become less so as situations evolve.

Basically, these suggestions are to focus on what can and cannot be controlled. Of course, the two I’ve proposed are just another approach and might not alter the exchange with a difficult party, but it’s worth the effort to avoid direct, hostile confrontation.

Are there any differences that are simply irreconcilable? Perhaps, but let’s consider some real life events that serve as examples on how to overcome such challenges:

We can start with Nelson Mandela and South African President F. W. de Klerk. After 27 years of political imprisonment world opinion supported Mandela and vilified de Klerk. Emerging from prison, Mandela called de Klerk “…an honorable man.” That had a major effect on de Klerk and the two began to work together to end apartheid.

And what about Shirley Chisholm, the first Black congresswoman and segregationist George Wallace? When Wallace was in the hospital after an attempted assassination, Chisholm prayed at his bedside for his recovery. According to Wallace’s daughter that act caused Wallace to weep and change his stance on racial segregation.

What we learn from these two examples from history is perhaps people who are divide on issues such as gun control, abortion, and other political views can reconcile. But we tend to believe our values are extensions of who we are and when they are threatened, it’s our identity as people that is threatened as well. Typically, we then become less rational and feelings of hate paired with dehumanization can follow.

But we can overcome such reactions by recognizing escalated conflicts do not have to severe our relationships. Shirley Chisholm and Nelson Mandela have demonstrated we can recognize our opponent’s humanity. Each was able to say to their opponent they understood how important their values were to them and their community, but there were also important positions they shared.

In the heat of disagreement we can find commonalities if we focus on the values we share as opposed to the ones that potentially lead to conflict.