Some points I have found helpful: Identify common ground For differences that remain: 1. Ensure everyone is using the same definitions 2. Identify key assumptions 3. Identify key steps in reasoning 4. Confront 2 and 3 with theoretical reasoning, qualitative and quantitative information of relevance 5. Narrow zone of disagreement 6. Accept that some fundamental values/ideology will differ so…disagreements can legitimately remain

Start by encouraging each member to articulate their viewpoints clearly, emphasizing evidence-based reasoning over personal opinions. Facilitate structured discussions where theories can be objectively compared, focusing on the shared goal or problem that needs solving. Use compromise or synthesis, identifying common ground or integrating complementary aspects of different theories. If disagreements persist, consider leveraging external research, consulting subject matter experts, or using data-driven approaches to validate assumptions. Ultimately, emphasize teamwork and a willingness to adapt based on outcomes, ensuring that decisions are made in the organization’s best interest.

Always see the bright side of economic situations. Cautious & risk-averse, always considering potential pitfalls. A data-driven expert, analyzing economic trends with precision. The United team of superheroes - To foster a successful team of economic experts, create a supportive environment where everyone feels comfortable sharing their unique perspectives.This open dialogue ensures that all viewpoints r valued & considered. Additionally, establishing shared goals can unite the team & provide a common direction.Finally, seeking expert input frm a neutral third party can offer fresh insights & help resolve conflicts.By embracing these strategies, ur team can effectively collaborate, overcome challenges, & achieve exceptional outcomes.

To navigate conflicting viewpoints on economic theories within your team, start by creating a safe and respectful environment for open dialogue, encouraging everyone to express their perspectives without fear of criticism. Facilitate structured discussions that focus on key issues, allowing each team member to present their theories and supporting evidence. Utilize active listening to ensure all voices are heard and valued. Identify common goals and areas of agreement, which can serve as a foundation for building consensus. Consider forming small, diverse groups to explore specific aspects of the theories and then reconvene to share insights. Employ decision-making frameworks, such as the Delphi method or consensus-building techniques

Conflicting viewpoints creates tension. But more often than not, its caused by the same issue contextualized from different viewpoints. This tension can be resolved by understanding these contexts. This is one major reason why we do applied research.

If your team is divided on economic theories, first of all, that is a good sign. It means your team has economists interested enough to care and your work environment allows the expression of diverging viewpoints. In this case, my recommendation is to remember the team has a common goal of finding the best solution for the problem at hand. Solving the problem is more important than being right. With this mindset, it should be easier to devise a way to experiment on the divergent theories. To further incentivize experimentation, make sure "getting it wrong" is a learning opportunity and not something that deserves blame, guilt or punishment.

Economic theory is hermeneutical by nature. Clear reasoning is key in getting an interpretation winning over others. But circumstances also matter; this is the reason why today a certain economics is considered "mainstream" and others are generally labelled as "heterodox". I would prefer to build a team which consistent in embracing a certain econ perspective.

When economic theories divide the team, I focus on fostering open dialogue and mutual understanding. I encourage each team member to express their views openly, ensuring that everyone feels heard. This collaborative space helps to diffuse tension and promotes respectful debate. Next, I guide the discussion toward identifying common goals. When we align on shared objectives, it becomes easier to focus on solutions rather than disagreements. Sometimes, bringing in an external expert or leveraging third-party research can provide a fresh perspective and help reconcile differing viewpoints.

To navigate clashing economic theories on my team: 1. Foster open dialogue and active listening. 2. Identify shared goals and objectives. 3. Encourage expert input from neutral third-parties. 4. Analyze data together to inform discussions. 5. Seek common ground and compromise. 6. Establish clear decision-making criteria. 7. Emphasize collaboration over individual perspectives.