Steve Reuter

04/02/2026

“It’s a shared hope for all of us that, at one point or another, we can change the minds and actions of another person. No matter how many times we hear it, or how it’s said, we continue to hold onto this fleeting dream that, if we could say just the right thing in just the right way, then they’ll get it – they’ll have the epiphany I know they need to have, and life will finally get better. But time after time, we are left disappointed and discouraged at the lack of realization by the other person. And after enough time, our hope that they’ll change shifts toward contempt that they didn’t.”

In a recent workshop on conflict, I had someone ask me, “I get the whole ‘take the high road’ thing, but what’s the point if they don’t meet us there?

03/27/2026

If you need to coach someone, set boundaries, or just tell someone “no,” remember the restaurant analogy!

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

03/27/2026

“The problem isn’t that we simplify. We have to simplify. The problem is that we don’t realize we’re simplifying and therefore don’t subject that simplification to proper scrutiny.
We mistake our quick assessment for a complete one, treat our assumptions as facts, and act on them with the confidence of someone who has done thorough due diligence. In reality, we’ve done nothing of the sort.”

Did you know that your senses can take in up to one billion bits of data every second, but that you can only consciously process around ten?

09/10/2025

We absolutely cannot resort to violence as a means to navigate our differences. This attack on Charlie Kirk is yet another horrifying act of political violence. these actions do not preserve democracy, they undermine it entirely.
We must be better than this.

08/23/2025

One of the most powerful political interventions I’ve ever seen was a single question.
Filmmaker Deeyah Khan sat across from Brian, a white supremacist with whom she sat multiple times before, and who believed people like her should be deported from America.

Instead of debating his ideology, she asked, “would you have me deported? Honestly.”

Long pause.

He tried to reason his way out of the question by arguing that he now considered her a friend and that she grew up in the US.

Then, Deeyah softly said one word, “…But…”
Brian had to make a decision.

That question did something no argument could. It created what neuroscientists call “cognitive dissonance” in a psychologically safe environment.
Brian’s brain was trying to hold two conflicting realities: “This woman should be deported” and “This woman is my friend.”

Here’s what research tells us: When we feel threatened, cognitive dissonance makes us dig deeper into our positions. But when we feel safe, it opens us to new information.

Deeyah’s genuine curiosity created safety. She wasn’t attacking Brian’s humanity; she was helping him examine the gap between his beliefs and his experience.

The result?
After a decade of membership and work as their director of public engagement, Brian left the white supremacist movement.
He said it was because of that moment when she held his inconsistencies on front of him and sat with him as he reckoned with it all.

This is why political debates on social media fail so spectacularly. They create threat, not safety. Dissonance becomes defensiveness, not discovery.

You can’t shame someone into changing their mind. You can’t logic them out of beliefs they didn’t logic themselves into.

But you can create conditions where their own mind does the work.

So, now it’s your turn. What would change if you approached someone from across the political divide with curiosity about their human experience behind their position?

08/10/2025

The edict “assume positive intent” is a victim of its own creation. While it intends to make workplaces and political dialogue healthier by looking for the good in everyone, the impact doesn’t match the intention.
Instead, it becomes a shield that protects those who cause harm while silencing those who experience it.

“When leaders lean on “I didn’t mean to” instead of owning impact, staff see a double standard: Leaders’ intentions are protected, but employees are still held accountable for their impact. Over time, that erodes trust, fuels passive-aggressive behavior and drives talent out the door.”

This conversation was sparked in discussions about the What We Can Do Weeks Scaffolding For Trust.

Whether it’s in the workplace, with family, or in political dialogue, our impact is what matters. Our work is to shift our approach so that our impact matches our intention, not to defend our missteps with our intention.

https://www.startribune.com/office-job-culture-corporate-buzzwords/601450798

"When leaders lean on 'I didn’t mean to' instead of owning impact, staff see a double standard," Steve Reuter writes.

07/25/2025

"But here's what I've noticed about belonging: the groups that demand intellectual conformity are usually the most fragile. They require constant reinforcement of shared enemies and shared certainties because the belonging is built on opposition rather than purpose."

Here's a question I don't think we ask enough: What are we actually afraid of when we avoid genuine conversations with people who hold different political views? The surface answer is usually something about not wanting to waste time on "bad faith" arguments or not wanting to legitimize "harmful" id...

06/14/2025

Political violence is unacceptable.

Full Stop.

My heart is with Representative Melissa Hortman and Senator John Hoffman’s families through this horrific time.

Lives stripped away through needless killing proves nothing and only serves to widen the gap between us. Because when we dehumanize others, we create the space to consider violence an apporopriate option to express our anger, fear, or disagreement.

We can be a better people. We MUST be a better people.

05/30/2025

Want to be more effective in difficult conversations? Try replacing “Yes, but” with “Yes, and.”

In conflict, saying “Yes, but” often signals disagreement; even if you’re trying to acknowledge the other person’s point.

For example:“I see your perspective, but I still think we should do it my way.”

Translation? I heard you, but I’m disregarding it.

Now, let’s try “Yes, and I see your perspective, and I think there’s a way to connect that with what I’m thinking.”

Translation? I’m building on what you said, not tearing it down.

This subtle shift:
✅ Makes the other person feel heard (which lowers defensiveness)
✅ Keeps the conversation collaborative instead of combative
✅ Helps you steer the discussion toward common ground.

In negotiation, the most persuasive people don’t argue their way to agreement, they build their way there.

This is a lesson that helps us be better collaborators in the workplace, at home, in politics, or in the conference room.

Next time you’re in a tough conversation, test it out: swap “Yes, but” for “Yes, and.”

01/26/2025

It can feel cathartic in the moment to ridicule or debate someone who believes differently than us.

It’s a release, a way to channel the frustration and discomfort that comes with disagreement.
The problem is that the momentary sense of relief and satisfaction doesn’t just dissipate.

It ripples.

It reinforces the very divides we’re so frustrated by. It pushes “them” further away, while cementing “us” in our own echo chambers. The space for dialogue shrinks, and the cycle of polarization deepens.

So ask yourself: What are you trying to build? Connection? Understanding? Change? If so, ridicule isn’t the path.

It’s not easy to choose curiosity over combat or empathy over ego, but these choices matter. They’re how we interrupt the cycles of “us vs. them” and start creating spaces where dialogue is possible.

07/03/2024