Discussion or Dialogue: There's a Difference

If you want to make a difference its' a good idea to know how.

Every corporate survey of "Most Important Skills" that I've seen over the past 30 years inevitably comes out with Communication in the #1 slot. Communication covers a multitude of sins, but we get it: it's important to initiate, be articulate, listen...

Last week I got started on this track while discussing how organizations try to deal with Differences. That led to a closer look at Transactional vs. Transformational interactions.

My business tag line is "Teaching Smart People Practical Ways to Become Extraordinary." That often means offering up as many different ways as possible to look at a situation or concept. We know we all learn differently, so that just makes. In that spirit, here's another way to look at the whole "communication" thing using a bit of a different angle:

Dialogue vs. Discussion

The late Professor David Bohm was Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of London. He is perhaps best known for his work as a theoretical physicist; however, his interests in the areas of communication and dialogue date back to the 1950s. Bohm noted:

Dialogue "comes from the Greek word dialogos. Logos means 'the word' or in our case we would think of the 'meaning of the word.' And dia means 'through'--it doesn't mean two" . Bohm points out that dialogue suggests a "stream of meaning" flowing among, through and between us. This makes it possible to create a flow of meaning in an entire group so that some new understanding will emerge. This in turn will create a "shared meaning" in the group that serves as the glue or cement that will hold the group together.

Three Conditions for Success

In order for dialogue to take place, three conditions must be met.

1. People must suspend assumptions. Bohm says that discussions and negotiations are not dialogue, because each represents a process whereby someone tries to "win" or convince others to assume the views of another. In dialogue, there is no attempt to gain points or prevail, and nobody tries to "win." The primary objective of dialogue is to suspend your opinions and look at the opinions of others. All participants must learn to listen to what is on someone's mind and suspend judgment without coming to a conclusion. Dialogue requires an "empty place" to give all participants the necessary space to talk.

Note: I like this because it talks about assumptions and opinions. People often ask, "How do I suspend my judgment?" Well, I'm not sure that's the real question to ask. Why not? Heck, in organizations we get paid to exercise "good judgment." That's the act of processing the totality of the information available to you. The real issue is not becoming judgmental about assumptions and opinions. I find that a more helpful way to address the issue.

2. All participants must regard one another as colleagues. While authority and hierarchy permeate our organizations and relationships, dialogue can only take place when we can suspend those notions of authority. Since we must have an empty space in dialogue with no set agenda or program, it's easier to treat all participants as colleagues in a real dialogue setting.

3. There must be a "facilitator" who holds the context of the dialogue. Opinions will be expressed that will likely differ from those of many participants in the group; however, all participants must refrain from entering into discussions that attempt to break down the opinions of those different from the participants.

Bohm's work focused on groups. Organizations place a big emphasis on the importance of teams, so taking this model and seeing what it can mean for you just might be a good idea.

For those of you who are visual thinkers and whose memory is tweaked by visual images, here's a graphic that I hope will be helpful to that end:

For another look at how organizations reflect "community" and relationships, follow Jim Stroup's Managing Leadership series. Since doing something differently requires a change, Dan McCarthy shares the Change Equation of my former NTL colleague, the late Dick Beckhard.

Comments

[Karl Staib - Work Happy Now]

I've noticed that a lot of people don't recognize each other as colleagues when they have a conversation. They either think of themselves as inferior or superior. When we converse with a person as an equal, we can learn from their perspective in a neutral way.

Recent blog post: Don’t Be Afraid of the F Word

Recent blog post: Don’t Be Afraid of the F Word

[Hayli @ Rise Smart]

If possible, try to put yourself in the other person's shoes as well. Don't assume, but try to ask respectful, probing questions to understand their end goal and the reasoning behind their concerns or rationale. This can show you care about their input and help you both work toward a middle ground compromise, if necessary.

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Karl,

Isn't it fascinating how a little humility or a change in role perception can bump up our game when it comes to real communication?

Thanks for weighing in...

[Steve Roesler]

Hayli,

I think you hit on an important combination when it comes to questioning. Often the notion of "probing" doesn't come across as respectful. So a little deliberate effort in that area can go a long way toward keeping the conversation going.

[peter vajda]

Hayli and Steve,

Perhaps not probing but child-like or beginner's mind curiosity...the energy can be different.

[Stephen Billing]

I am interested in your advice to act as colleagues - it seems to be saying "pretend that power differences do not exist." And yet I think as human beings we cannot step outside of human interaction, in which power imbalances always exist. Nowhere more obvious than in organisational life where the hierarchy is defined in an organisation chart, and where people need each other to a greater or lesser degree.

So it doesn't seem very practical to me to advise people who are trying to have dialogue with their boss to ignore power relating when it is such an intrinsic part of that whole relationship.

With respect to the third point about dialogue needing a facilitator - while I make a living as a facilitator of change and often spend my time in groups helping people to understand each other, I wonder whether all dialogue needs a facilitator. Surely people can facilitate their own dialogue?

[Steve Roesler]

Stephen:

After re-reading the post I think your point is well taken: one shouldn't ignore the dynamics of the inherent power relationships with bosses. As a long-time consultant, I doubt that I've ever advised a subordinate to behave collegially with the boss. In fact, I can recall times when I emphasized that, no matter how "friendly" a boss was, the nature of the relationship organizationally was still a "power" one.

However, I have advised bosses who were struggling with relationships to "back off" on their power posture and behave in a more relaxed way toward the people in their groups. Thinking back to when I wrote this article, I believe that was what had prompted me to write it at the time. The issue I had recently seen involved multiple bosses playing the power card when they didn't have to and not getting the commitment that they wanted. They were getting compliance.

Now, the facilitator issue. Heck, I would hope that all dialogue doesn't need a facilitator. Like you, I spend a lot of time in that role. But I figure that if I am called back again and again with the same group or pair, either:

a. I haven't done a very good job of working myself out of a job and enabling them to be independent, or

b. They genuinely don't want to change the dynamic but are willing to invest the time to "get someone off their back" and make it appear that they want to make progress.

Good points all. I think I may do another article to add additional context to this.

[chanel outlet]

I've noticed that a lot of people don't recognize each other as colleagues when they have a conversation. They either think of themselves as inferior or superior. When we converse with a person as an equal, we can learn from their perspective in a neutral way.