In our professional and civic lives, we are often conditioned to prize being right above almost everything else. We believe that having the correct answer, the most accurate data, or the superior moral position can give us more influence. However, in the work of community building and citizenship, the need to be right is often the greatest barrier to connection. When we cling to our rightness, we leave no room for the other person’s reality. To be a citizen is to intentionally loosen our grip on certainty so that a new, collective truth can emerge.

The high cost of intellectual possession

The need to be right is fundamentally a defensive posture. It is a way of protecting ourselves from the vulnerability of not knowing. When we are right, we are safe; we have a sense of control over the narrative. But this safety comes at a heavy price. When I am committed to being right, I am no longer listening to you. I’m waiting for a gap in the conversation to reassert my position. This turns a dialogue into a competition, where the goal is to win rather than to relate.

In the workplace, this manifests as “expert” leadership, where the person with the most seniority or technical skill dominates the room. This effectively silences the gifts and perspectives of everyone else, treating their input as a distraction rather than an asset. In our neighbourhoods, it looks like the resident who is certain they know why the local project will fail before it has even begun. Both scenarios result in a “stuck” system where no one is learning and no one is being invited into accountability. Letting go of being right is the act of prioritising the relationship over the ego.

From rightness to understanding

There is a profound shift that happens when we move from trying to be right to trying to understand. Understanding requires us to be curious about the logic of someone else’s position, especially when it contradicts our own. It asks us to wonder what it is like to be them, given their history, their pressures, and their values. This is not an act of agreement or a compromise of our own principles. It is an act of hospitality.

When we let go of the need to be the sole possessor of the truth, we create a common space where diverse perspectives can be integrated. This is where innovation lives. In a board meeting or a street association, the most generative conversations are those where people are willing to be surprised by what they learn from one another. By loosening our grip on what we already “know,” we make room for the wisdom that only exists between us.

The sovereignty of the open mind

Letting go of being right is an act of sovereignty. It takes a high level of personal maturity to admit that our view is partial and incomplete. When we can say, “I am not sure, what do you think?” or “Help me understand your perspective,” we are modelling a new kind of leadership. We are showing that the strength of the community lies in our ability to think together, not in one person’s ability to be correct.

This practice of letting go of certainty is what allows a community to move forward in the face of ambiguity. It turns a group of competing individuals into a collective of citizens who are accountable for a shared future. By choosing to be curious rather than correct, we open ourselves to the possibility of being changed by the people around us. This is the true meaning of belonging, being part of a whole that is larger than our own individual rightness.

Questions for reflection

  • In which current situation or relationship am I most committed to being right, and what exactly am I protecting by holding that position?
  • How would my listening change today if I assumed the other person holds a vital piece of the truth that I am currently missing?
  • What is the specific fear I have about being wrong or admitting I do not have the answer in front of my colleagues or neighbours?
  • What is one thing about a colleague’s or neighbour’s perspective that I do not yet understand, and how can I ask them about it today?
  • What would happen in my next meeting if I chose to model not knowing as a way to invite others to contribute their own gifts?