Polarized groups don’t just clash on how to solve societal problems. They don’t trust each other, don’t like each other, and write each other off.

But we can find “cracks” in the “walls of distrust” and use these cracks to build healthier group dynamics, said Sim Sitkin, the Michael W. Krzyzewski University Distinguished Professor of Management and Organizations at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business.

In a talk on Fuqua’s LinkedIn page, Sitkin — also the director of the Fuqua/Coach K Center on Leadership & Ethics (COLE) — said polarized communities become so entrenched in their worldview that they even dismiss the potentially positive contributions of the opposing group.

However, a way to address mistrust is by focusing on “narrow” spaces where we can find common values, Sitkin said, and employers — one of the most trusted institutions, according to recent surveys — are uniquely positioned to help facilitate this process.

The determinants of distrust

Polarized groups distrust each other because they think they don’t share the same values and their worldviews are incompatible, Sitkin said.

“It's not just ‘I don't trust you on this issue.’ When it shifts from low trust on one or two issues to become pervasive, you have now entered the domain of distrust. If I distrust you, I have written you off,” he said.

Even something potentially positive brought up by a member of the outgroup is preemptively dismissed.

“There is a stable negative perception, almost immune to countervailing information,” Sitkin said. ”You ignore positive information because either you're just trying to trick me, or you're spinning the information, and what you're telling me is not true.”

This negative interaction reinforces the distrust, he said, which becomes “sticky” because groups bond with their inner circles of “generalized trust,” restrict their interaction to them and keep the out group away. "So there is no opportunity for repair," he said.

Sitkin said generalized trust for your own group has a similar but opposite set of characteristics as the distrust for the out group.

“With distrust, I believe you don't respect me, don’t care about my welfare, don’t understand me, whereas within my group of trust, I believe that you do care and understand me,” he said.

Sitkin believes “healthy and democratic” societies or organizations should locate themselves in a continuum between the extremes, where their members keep their differences but consider the positions of the other members with discernment.

“Distrust and generalized trust are really extreme and dysfunctional,” he said. “I have no uncertainty because I know I can't trust you about anything, or I know I can trust you about everything. Whereas in the middle, it's functional because people are still exercising their judgment.”

“They're not writing the person off entirely,” he said.

What we can do to overcome distrust

Avoiding interactions with the other party reinforces the entrenchment and makes distrust harder to overcome, because it leads to focus on the negatives, Sitkin said.

The more we interact, the more opportunities we have to prove we are trustworthy and have some shared values.

“In the political arena, we can emphasize that we are all Americans, we care about liberty and freedom,” he said. “That’s a shared identity, even if we disagree about specific policies.”

Research has shown that it is really helpful to focus on what is common, areas where we can establish trust — even a narrow one — and build on it, without denying the differences, Sitkin said.

“If you can create a crack in that wall of distrust, and find something that is positive, that moves you into the trust-building mode,” he said.

But it is important that “you go out of your way” to interact positively with your out group, Sitkin said.

Even in disagreement, we should make sure they know that you will always treat them fairly, he said, and we should also clearly convey that we respect each other and are willing to try to understand through their eyes.

“Do not attack the other person's beliefs or positions, or they will dig in their heels,” he said. “Show you really understand their rationale and you can respect it, even if you disagree with it, before you raise anything about an opposing point of view.”

The role of employers

The Edelman Trust Barometer survey has shown employers are the most trusted institutions, and they are in a unique position to begin addressing polarization in the workplace, Sitkin said.

For example, years ago, a North Carolina software company created an open posting forum where employees were free to raise even conflicting issues, but with respect and decorum, he said.

Sitkin also mentioned Duke’s Dialogue Project, an initiative aimed at exploring how business can facilitate the discourse around polarization.

He said businesses can help people build dialogue rather than confrontation and structure positive opportunities for contact.

But when organizations try to bridge differences, they should be aware they hold a lot of power over the employees, who are in a position of vulnerability with their employer.

“They may worry whether you're actually advocating for them with the other or that you are using them,” he said.

It’s crucial that they know that the leader values both parties, understands their vulnerabilities and cares about their success, Sitkin said.

And when circumstances lead the company towards policies that are against someone’s priorities, make sure they know before the fact, he said. “I would go to them ahead of time and say, ‘by the way, I'm going to have to do this. Let me explain why,’” he said.

“What you don't want is to have to build a generalized trust. That's too far. I want you to not just take everything as gospel. I want you to be able to think and push back, if what I say doesn’t make sense to you. That’s the kind of thing that helps build a trusting relationship.” Sitkin said.