Bridge Across Difference
Build common ground through shared experiences before tackling disagreements
- Difficulty
- Advanced
- Time to result
- ~ongoing to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 93%
Bridge Across Difference treats polarization as a relationship problem rather than merely an argument to be won. Participants first accept minimum norms that make engagement possible. They then seek to understand why each side views itself as justified, identify values or outcomes they share, and participate in a concrete experience such as service, a meal, a religious visit, or collaborative funding. Shared activity creates human contact before abstract disagreement resumes. The objective is not forced consensus: important differences can remain, and agreeing to disagree may be sufficient. What matters is establishing enough trust and common purpose to cooperate constructively. The method can operate within communities or among organizations, as illustrated by funders with sharply different political traditions pooling resources for projects that strengthen pluralism.
Origin
Extracted from Masters in Business through David Einhorn's account of the Einhorn Collaborative's bridging work and the New Pluralists funding collaborative.
Core principles
- 01Assume people across a disagreement generally see themselves as good actors
- 02Understand opposing motivations before trying to change minds
- 03Establish minimum behavioral norms
- 04Find shared values without erasing meaningful differences
- 05Use common experiences to create relationships
- 06Accept respectful disagreement as a valid outcome
How to run it
- 1
Establish minimum norms
Agree on the conduct required for safe, respectful participation before addressing contentious issues.
Pro tip Make the norms behavioral and observable rather than ideological.
Watch out Bridging cannot work when abuse or dehumanization is treated as an acceptable difference of opinion.
- 2
Understand each side's motivations
Let participants explain what they value, fear, and hope to protect without immediately debating their conclusions.
Pro tip Ask questions that reveal why each participant believes they are acting responsibly.
Watch out Understanding a motivation does not require endorsing every action or claim.
- 3
Find common values
Identify shared commitments that remain meaningful despite policy, religious, or cultural disagreements.
Pro tip Look for practical goals such as community safety, dignity, service, or national well-being.
Watch out Do not manufacture superficial agreement or conceal real differences.
- 4
Create a shared experience
Bring participants together through service, meals, visits, or a practical project that requires cooperation.
Pro tip Choose an activity where participants contribute as peers.
Watch out A staged encounter without meaningful interaction may reinforce stereotypes.
- 5
Collaborate on a bounded goal
Use the common values to select one concrete outcome that participants can support together.
Pro tip Keep the initial scope narrow enough to produce visible cooperation.
Watch out Do not require agreement on every other issue as the price of collaboration.
- 6
Preserve honest disagreement
Acknowledge unresolved differences while maintaining the relationship and shared work.
Pro tip Treat respectful agreement to disagree as progress when consensus is unrealistic.
Watch out Avoid measuring success solely by ideological convergence.
In the wild
The New Pluralists brought together 22 funders with highly diverse views, ranging from the Kochs to the Hewletts. The funders first had to sit together despite disagreements about one another's work, identify what they held in common, pool their money, and support field builders working to unite communities and bridge differences.
→ Ideologically diverse funders established a functioning collaborative and financed shared cultural goals.
Community members from different religions meet through service, dinner, and visits to one another's churches, mosques, or synagogues. Rather than beginning with theological debate, they develop familiarity and cooperation through direct experience.
→ Participants form relationships across religious boundaries without needing to erase their distinct beliefs.
Common mistakes
Trying to win before listening
Immediate persuasion prevents participants from understanding the motivations and values beneath opposing positions.
Demanding complete consensus
Requiring agreement on every issue destroys opportunities for cooperation on narrower shared goals.
Ignoring minimum norms
Pluralism cannot be sustained if harmful conduct is excused in the name of including every viewpoint.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for communities, institutions, and funding groups whose members disagree strongly but retain some shared goals and behavioral norms.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal where participants reject basic safety norms, act in bad faith, or have no willingness to coexist.
From the transcript
“And then how is it that you can find some commonality? What values do we all have in common even if we disagree in important…”
“But once you get through that base level, then you can try to figure out how you bring people together.”
“And sometimes just agreeing to disagree is fine.”
From the episode
David Einhorn: Market Structures Are Broken
David Einhorn