Last week, I taught mid-career professionals in using dialogue (as opposed to discussion) to explore issues and understand different points of view.
A brief primer on dialogue: While discussion focuses on seeing differences, justifying positions, persuading and selling (among other things), dialogue seeks to increase understanding among people, seeing connections, exploring assumptions and creating shared meaning.
Dialogue balances advocacy (advancing your point of view) with inquiry (exploring what’s underneath others’ and your own perspectives). Discussion favors advocacy over inquiry.
Back to my story: Here were a motivated group of people, who had spent a week together working on learning about themselves and about communicating effectively, and yet it was really hard for them to keep from slipping out of dialogue into discussion.
They had prepared themselves for the dialogue and identified dialogic behaviors they wanted to develop, but in practice sessions they did much more advocacy than inquiry, including interrupting each other.
Clearly, people needed more time and practice to learn how to dialogue. They were smart, motivated folks, yet the old habits still took hold.
I wonder how true that is for influence leaders in general. I know I sometimes surrender to my desire to drive home a point.
How well do you practice true inquiry and dialogue with the people you want to influence? Do you succumb to desire to advocate too readily?
