Recently a friend shared Daniel Yankelovich’s (1) thinking around the differences between ‘debate v dialogue’. Dialogue of course pre-supposes an open mind and a willingness to listen, share thoughts and ideas. Debate on the other hand brings a winner and a loser. It is combative and the participants’ aim is to win the argument and seek to prove the other person wrong. In essence there is an assumption that there is a right answer and you have it.
The political landscape is full of classic examples of destructive and combative position taking. Donald Trump’s legacy of course is one of a combative leader, dividing a nation. Even here in NZ we have seen the various competing styles of leadership with our relatively recent elections. Judith Collins showed her willingness to slug it out versus a more conciliatory approach taken by Jacinda Adhern. Whatever your politics, the comparison of styles was stark.
The combative style of leadership is usually marked with subtle or not so subtle ‘front foot’ approach aiming to put down any opinion that doesn’t support one’s own viewpoint and personal positional power status.
Being human, we are all are vulnerable to taking a position and being so swept up with our emotions that we may not actively listen to others' views. All humans are egocentric to some degree or another, but the bigger the ego, the more unlikely the best outcome will be achieved.
This is particularly true if whatever is on the table for discussion has personal implications. A very common situation is when we are challenged to change how we have done something for years which will require work and often stepping outside our 'comfort zone'.
One of the great downsides of needing to be right is the very negative outcome of feeling disenfranchised when we don’t get what we want as an outcome. It is more powerful and uplifting to acknowledge that many people have pieces of the answer and that together a solution can be crafted and owned by all.
Of course there are some leadership situations where you do not have the luxury of discussing the merits of the various points if view. Take for example the battle ground of war where leaders have to quickly asses the situation, make a decision and act. Another obvious one is in an emergency where life and limb is at stake such as with an aircraft issue. The pilot has no choice but to quickly call upon all his or her expertise to save the day.
However usually in people’s personal life and work life, there is time to have meaningful dialogue to get to the best solution of whatever challenge is pitched at us. Certainly in a school situation leaders’ success or failure will usually come down to relationships where trust is cemented. When stakeholders are ‘sincerely ‘heard’ and feel they have a voice without fear of retribution, trust is quickly built and meaningful dialogue can take place.
Leadership is not a science but an art involving a delicate mix of expertise, consultation, integrity and ethical action. Of course leaders have to make the final call on issues as ‘the buck stops’ with them. No matter how much dialogue takes place, we all get it wrong from time to time. However if the leader has engaged in sincere dialogue, called on expert other opinion as needed, made the final call based on this and they ‘stuff up’, then due process has taken place.
The ‘ethic’ of dialogue’ bonds any team and has the potential to unify a country. The problem is the 3 year political election term gets in the way but that is another story!
Debate versus Dialogue From “The Magic of Dialogue” by Daniel Yankelovich, 1999)
Heading Quote: Pinterest (Seth Godwin)
No comments:
Post a Comment