Apr
22
Moving Beyond Debate: Start a Dialogue
Filed Under Uncategorized
I posted previously about the importance of leading through conversation. Leadership conversations are those difficult conversations we have about exploring who we are, what we value, what we stand for and where we are going. They’re about breaking new ground and exploring together the future that we want to create. Often the staring point for these type of conversations is a clear understanding of our current reality. In my experience seeing current reality as it is as opposed to how we wish is were is, without becoming defensive and rationalizing away what we find, is a very difficult conversation. I believe that effective leadership conversations occur when we learn. When leading conversations, it’s important that as leaders we encourage a specific type of conversation, a conversation that Mark Gerzon refers to as dialogue.
Mark Gerzon author of “Leading Through Conflict: How Successful Leaders Transform Differences into Opportunities” wrote a great article on HBS Working Knowledge titled Moving Beyond Debate: Start a Dialogue which captures the difference between debate and dialogue and provides a good foundation for building great leadership conversations. As Mark points out, people prefer dialogue over powerpoint!
As I worked in more than a hundred organizations or communities over the past decade, I kept track of which form of discourse my clients most often wanted. They did not want more speeches and presentations. They did not want more debates between two know-it-alls, each of whom was sure they were right and the other person was wrong. They did not want yet another “exchange of views” that skirted difficult issues and papered over problems. What they yearned for was deep, honest, inclusive, and respectful dialogue.
Key insight….. effective dialogue is built on trust!
Trust is the foundation of great dialogue. It’s trust that allows people, who each have different world views, beliefs and frames of reference to engage in productive dialogue. Julio Olalla says that ”Trust is the precondition for coordinated action“. Trust makes conversation possible and where there is trust defensiveness is reduced and learning can begin. As highlighted in the article:
“….polarized debate (which is rampant in both corporate and civic life) does not raise the level of trust; conversely, genuine dialogue (which is rare) often does.”
Trust increases a teams creativity. This allows people to explore new territory and bridge different worldviews:
Our goal now is to build the trust necessary to create alliances between adversaries (bridging) so that they can catalyze new approaches to, and potentially breakthroughs in, the conflict (innovation).
Trust is built by engaging in dialogue which is described in the article by the following table:
|
Debate |
Dialogue |
| Assuming that there is a right answer, and that you have it | Assuming that many people have pieces of the answer |
| Combative: participants attempt to prove the other side wrong | Collaborative: participants work together toward common understanding |
| About winning | About exploring common ground |
| Listening to find flaws and make counter-arguments | Listening to understand, find meaning and agreement |
| Defending our own assumptions as truth | Revealing our assumptions for reevaluation |
| Seeing two sides of an issue | Seeing all sides of an issue |
| Defending one’s own views against those of others | Admitting that others’ thinking can improve one’s own. |
| Searching for flaws and weaknesses in others’ positions | Searching for strengths and value in others’ positions |
| By creating a winner and a loser, discouraging further discussion | Keeping the topic even after the discussion formally ends |
| Seeking a conclusion or vote that ratifies your position | Discovering new options, not seeking closure |
In discussing the above table Mark makes the following observations:
Notice how debate is a powerful strategy for advocating a fixed position, while dialogue is far better for inquiry, building relationships, and creating innovations……While debate is useful for making decisions and taking votes, dialogue is the key to renewal. The power of debate is that two polarized voices are free to speak. But the power of dialogue is that these voices can actually be heard.
One of the benefits of engage in dialogue is that leaders are able to gain higher levels of commitment those involved in dialogue. As Steven Covey observed “No involvement, no commitment“.
An organization or community can develop the clearest, most inspiring plans. But if those involved do not feel heard and engaged, and if their concerns are not taken into account through genuine dialogue, those plans will not be well executed.
Dialogue is what effective conversation is all about. The interesting part is that there seems to be so little dialogue happen in business today. We’re so busy rushing to get things done that we fail to slow down and make time for meaningful dialogue. The consequences are an increasing lack of meaning and purpose in organisations (see previous posts here and here). We may have gained efficiency, but at what cost? It seems to me that too many businesses have lost their soul in the process!
“I never saw an instance of one or two disputants convincing the other by argument.” —Thomas Jefferson
Technorati Tags: Conversation, Communication, Management, Collaboration, Leadership, Business, Business, Learning
Related Posts
Comments
3 Responses to “Moving Beyond Debate: Start a Dialogue”
Leave a Reply
-
Welcome to The Practice of Leadership!
-
Contact Me
-
What I support...
I am very intrigued by this conversation delineating debate from dialog. My expertise is in politics, and in my book, Call to Liberty, I argue that a discussion based on commonly held principles is more likely to produce dialog than an argumentative debate based on values. Principles are those centuries-old ideas used to delineate liberal democratic republics from medieval feudal empires. In fact, they created the basis for liberal democratic republics. I am curious as to the roll your commentators see in this regard. Yes, we need to listen.But needn’t there be some basis for such listening to be effective? Some common purpose?
Very meaningful post, George.
Intellectually, almost everyone in a business would agree with the principles stated.
In watching the debate vs. dialogue over the years, I’ve come to realize that things go pretty well until someone throws down the “we can’t do everything–our resources are limited” gauntlet. Then, magically, invisible lines begin to appear in the sand, and the jousting begins. What started as a “we’re in this together” meeting can become a zero-sum game.
The solution to that dynamic has almost always been a strong, thoughtful leader who sees the dynamic for what it is, names it, and pulls the group back to a dialogue.
Thanks for the post…
[...] learning is best initiated as conversation or dialogue with the intention of exploring and understanding how things are working in a non-threatening [...]