Download
1 / 32
320 likes | 407 Views
A conversation with a center, not sides. In search of dialogue, instead of debate…. COMM ISSUES FOR LEADERS. Gre g Forester. Why Dialogue? This world celebrates debate and denigrates dialogue…. From politics to entertainment, the goal is often to “win” over “the other.”
E N D
A conversation with a center, not sides In search of dialogue, instead of debate… COMM ISSUES FOR LEADERS Greg Forester
Why Dialogue? This world celebrates debate and denigrates dialogue… • From politics to entertainment, the goal is often to “win” over “the other.” • This makes for good theater but fails to solve problems… • A better strategy is Dialogue • Word comes from the Greek “dia” and “logos”…or “through meaning” • Therefore, Dialogue is the act of (two or more people) creating meaning together
Stewart: Empowerment through dialogue Dialogue, or “creating meaning” empowers us to overcome obstacles of understanding and collaboration. In effect, dialogue means rising above our preexisting notions and beliefs to create new notions or beliefs with others. Empowered, we can work with others more effectively and be better leaders.
So what happens when we debate? Debate is taking a position and defending it to the last. Little room to create new meaning or consensus. Little room for compromise. Winner and loser.
So what happens when we debate? (more) In debate, there is little true listening (beyond the presence of audience). Parties are defensive of viewpoints. Defense means shielding mind from comprehending the other side’s position. Consensus & agreement become impossible, as debate continues. Problems go unsolved…
The 2011 Debt Ceiling Debate Summer of 2011 – House GOP will not approve debt ceiling increase (federal government credit limit). GOP demands spending cuts equal to requested increase in debt issuance. First time in American history that debt ceiling is held up for a “strings attached” deal between Congress & President.
Obama Responds Abandons original stance refusing to negotiate on debt-ceiling. Proposes “Grand Compromise” ($4 trillion in spending cuts and tax increases). Stalemate leads to $1 trillion cut and Super Committee. Super Committee has until Nov. 23rdto produce $1.2 trillion (or more) in deficit reduction via spending cuts, revenue (tax) increases or combo. Clock is ticking…
What did the public want? Public Opinion polling: more than 55% of Americans favor Grand Compromise. 60-70% of Americans support tax increases on the wealthy. Leaders fought, called each other names, lied about the other side’s intentions, and could not come together for a compromise. No listening, no respect, no compromise.
Moody’s Downgrade Soon after debate concludes, Moody’s ratings agency downgrades US. Dropped to AA+. Down from sterling AAA debt rating. Implications: higher interest rates for U.S. government, consumers, and less funding for programs & services. Cited inability of politicians to work together and come up with good solutions. More downgrades on the horizon if no compromises are reached…
Moody’s Downgrade (cont.) Moody’s primary citation in downgrade was NOT the U.S. $15 trillion deficit (equal to all money made in this economy in one year). Cited “toxic” Washington D.C. governing environment and pols’ inability to have dialogue and reach compromise. More info in following video.
Introducing Dialogue:Deborah Tannen • With differing views, debate is one option. • Dialogue is another. • Debate is more entrenched in society. • Especially in: • Politics (debt ceiling debate) • Entertainment (Reality TV, Jerry Springer, sports, etc.) • Education (in the classroom)
Debate in the classroom Many teachers pursue debate. Appears productive/educational. In reality, students are often simply bludgeoning one another with their positions, while most are uninvolved. “Subtleties, nuances, complexities” ignored… Gross/dramatic statements. IMPORTANT: Points never conceded.
(Short-term) Rewards of Debate • Debate is “the easy way out” in the classroom for many teachers/leaders in other arenas. • Easy to set up, and results are “flashy”: • Loud, argumentative banter • Appearance of excitement (in participants) • As opposed to dialogue, where learning “how to integrate ideas and explore subtleties and complexities is much harder” but with quieter, more long-term rewards
Where did the Culture of Debate come from? Deeply rooted in Western tradition. Greeks fascinated “with adversativeness in language and thought.” All-male character of universities a contributing factor. Teaching was “war” with students. Learning accomplished by aggressively debating teachers on the points. Not so in the East…
Eastern Tradition of Dialogue Chinese reject debate as “incompatible with…harmony cultivated” by scholars. Enlighten rather than overwhelm. Overwhelm in education? A contradiction in terms, since the defeated are defeated, not learn-ed. Greece – truth gained from opposition. China – emphasis on harmony and balance via talk (dialogue).
Never stepping back… Greek Tradition & Socratic Method do not allow debaters to “step back” from individual points. Can only see the tactical debate, rather than collaborating to create a new solution. In other words, focusing on the points – already created meaning – does not allow for creating new meaning. Example: political parties.
Getting Beyond Dualism We see issues as “absolute and irreconcilable principles…at war.” As opposed to Yin and Yang. Opposite elements that coexist and create balance when together. Leadership practice: have subordinates compare three ideas instead of two. Eliminates dualism pitfalls (liberal vs. conservative, left vs. right, etc.).
Tannen’s Suggestions Don’t demonize those with whom you disagree. Don’t affront deep moral commitments Don’t talk about rights. Instead, talk about needs, wants, and interests. Leave really touchy issues out of it. BUT do not be so conciliatory or collaborative that you concede core beliefs or values.
William IsaacsA Conversation with a Center, Not Sides Or….learning how to develop capacity for advancing good dialogue…
Capacity for New Behavior Isaacs introduces this point (confusingly) with the title Producing Coherent Actions. By producing coherent actions, Isaacs means ensuring our words and actions are consistent...or "coherent.”
Capacity for New Behavior (continued…) Often individuals say one thing, do another. This is often due to defensive emotions, among other reasons. "Of course, I can complete the project on time," we say, thinking "I can't believe she assigned this project this late in the semester, since I will probably fail."
Predictive Intuition Constructs (co-workers, management, organizational structure, and external stakeholders) can nullify our best intentions and prevent success. Leaders must identify those forces, anticipate them, and neutralize them. Isaacs calls this “Creating Fluid Structures of Interaction.”
Predictive Intuition (cont.) Leadership practice: Predictive Intuition comes into play with employees who tend to interfere with collaboration on a certain project or when another team member is opposed to completing a project a certain way. Suggestion: Communicate with the manager about the project or pursue the project with a team member in a way that both of you will find acceptable.
Architecture of the Invisible Many forces at work when people interact. Many are directly involved in preventing common ground and the creation of shared meaning. People go into predictably difficult conversations in a defensive, anxious emotional state. In such a state, listening becomes difficult….
Architecture of the Invisible (cont.) • Defensiveness = Objective becomes defending one's position at all costs, even not listening to the other side. • Also at play: • Judgments and stereotyping based on past interaction with counterparty or persons similar to the counterparty. • End result: complete and total failure in collaboration and compromise. • No solution to the problem (debt ceiling.)
Architecture of the Invisible (cont.) Good leaders identify these emotions and work to neutralize them during key conversations (significant other, supervisor, or professor). Learn to go into the dialogue in a better emotional state Eliminate the effects of the "invisible architecture” Truly listen to the counterparty's position. This is one of the only possible ways to ID room for a potential compromise and acceptable solution.
