"One of the things I did right in the whole process was to establish a set of ground rules dealing with how we should engage with one another. It wasn't so much that I dictated it, but I did model it. In the middle of the year's worth of work, I gave a speech about the difference between debate and dialogue, making the point that dialogue was a far superior method for reaching understanding and resolution. The essential difference between it and debate is that in dialogue, you are listening to understand rather than looking for ways to convince someone of your view point. It was my way of trying to build understanding throughout the entire culture and it was embraced quickly and readily. It became a powerful force on campus, and a way for doing business." - Michael Bassis, president Olivet College
I remember thinking from business books that building a team of people who are courageous in debating ideas is a great way to get healthy results. And that courage is something I've seen and appreciated as people challenge ideas, so the principle is sound. But I especially like the distinction between debate - and its win-lose connotation - versus dialogue as a means of exploring. There can be many good answers to emerge from a dialogue. The one that was in my head when I entered the room may well be different from the one that becomes reality. And as a side note, I think that effective organizations make it clear who gets to break any stalemates. I've seen enough to know that such a person, if designated, acts like a bathtub plug. It's necessary to keep resources from flushing down the drain!
No comments:
Post a Comment