Lunch seems pretty tame until your boss announces, “Build a wall, and deport them all! Who is with me?” or “Only lunatics want assault weapons – we should ban them all tomorrow!”

An awkward silence descends as your boss awaits your confirmation. Here’s the problem: you vehemently disagree, but you love your job and your colleagues, including your boss. You also worry that staying silent will be interpreted as agreement.

It’s always been risky to voice your political views and, in today’s polarized environment, it’s become practically taboo. Our recent study showed that one in three of us have been attacked, insulted, or called names for sharing our opinions; and one in four have had a political discussion permanently damage a relationship.

In some ways, our private parleys reflect what we see around us. The political dialogue we observe on television and in social media is rarely dialogue at all. Instead, it is mutual monologues—laced with verbal Molotov cocktails designed not to invite reflection but to discredit the other position (or person). These arguments generate far more heat than light. And so they are rightly avoided by most of us, until we’re blindsided by our boss, our mother-in-law, or our neighbor whose goal is to confirm our conversion rather than elicit our opinion.

At a minimum we need skills for handling these unfortunate conversations. But do political conversations really have to be so unfortunate? What about Abraham Lincoln and his Team of Rivals? Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book describes how Lincoln brought his political opponents into his cabinet to learn from their divergent perspectives. Wouldn’t our democracy be stronger if we could discuss our political differences in a way that built understanding and respect?

We wanted to see what it takes to talk politics without losing friends. Is the old adage that the only safe path is to avoid discussions of politics and religion true? Or are there reliable ways to both express our views and keep relationships?

What the Research Says

We began by documenting the problem. First, we surveyed 1,866 potential voters in May, after the presidential candidates had won their respective primaries, but before the conventions. Even at that relatively early stage of the election year we found:

Nine out of ten potential voters said the 2016 elections are more polarizing and controversial than the 2012 elections.

81% said they avoid political discussions at all costs.

We were interested in what these political discussions might sound like, so we asked our respondents to describe the voters who support a candidate they oppose. The most common adjectives they used were (in order): angry, uneducated, ignorant, uninformed, racist, white, narrow, and blind. No wonder these discussions turn into fights!

Next, we invited subjects to participate in an online experiment. We asked 3,688 participants about their political opinions, then asked them to watch one of two versions of a video of someone advocating a strong political position opposite of their own– for example, those who said they were in favor of immediate deportation of illegal immigrants watched a 60 second video of someone describing why they thought such a policy would be both immoral and damaging to the economy.

In one version, the actor used four simple skills (described below). In the other version, the actor spoke in absolutes and villainized the other point of view.

We then asked those who had watched the videos to judge how diplomatic, likable, knowledgeable, and persuasive this person appeared – as well as how wiling they would be to continue this conversation.

The results were remarkable. When the actors used the four simple skills, they were:

Five times more likely to be seen as diplomatic

Four times more likely to be seen as likeable

Three times more likely to be seen as knowledgeable

140% more persuasive

140% more likely to stay in dialogue with others

180% more likely to maintain relationships with others

When these same actors didn’t use the four skills, observers labeled them as “abrasive,” “unlikeable,” and “ignorant.”

Struck by the results, we tested another condition. We asked subjects to watch a video of someone who strongly agreed with their point of view (one version with the actor using skills, the other without) – and asked them to judge the actor. These same labels held true even when the observers had the same opinion as the actor. That’s right– even when you agree, how you share your view risks alienating friends and weakening relationships.

Our findings suggest that whether you agree or disagree with another person matters much less than how you share your opinion.

Four Simple Skills for Sharing Your Political Opinion

Here are the four skills that accounted for these remarkable differences in subjects’ judgments, and you can use as you navigate political discussions at work:

Focus on learning: Frame your conversation as a chance to learn from each other not to change each other’s minds. Simply being curious about another’s position is sufficient motivation to engage. But, if you harbor a hope of converting the other person you’ll be tempted to become manipulative or coercive. For example: “I know what I think about immigration, but I’m curious about why you feel so differently. Would you be open to sharing your position with me?”

Ask for permission: After affirming your “focus on learning,” ask for permission to talk about the sensitive topic. That may sound like: “I’m not wanting a debate, and I’m not trying to change your mind. I just want to understand. I see this issue very differently. Would it be okay if I explained my perspective?”

Show respect: Respect is like air, if you take it away, it’s all people can think about. Others will not engage with you if they don’t feel you respect them. Set the stage by over-communicating your respect for the other person and his or her opinion: “I value you and your perspective. I want to hear from you. I don’t assume I’m right.”

Focus on common ground: Look for areas of agreement rather than disagreement. If or when the conversation takes a more dramatic turn, look for the greater principle governing both opinions and you’ll likely find a mutual purpose behind your convictions. Say things like: “I want to find the goals we share, and then look at the issue with those goals in mind.”

While in this experiment we only tested these skills on political issues, our ongoing research into crucial conversations supports the possibility that they will help in any situations where opinions vary and emotions run strong.

A healthy democracy produces the best public policies through the contest of ideas. That contest ends—or becomes toxic—when people begin to think they have to choose between speaking their minds and keeping friendships with their coworkers. This study offers hope that such a choice need not be made. If we are willing to offer a little psychological safety to others and manage our own motives, our conversations can create opportunities for learning while actually enhancing our relationships.