Excerpt from Do The Right Thing: Dialogue

An excerpt from Chapter 6 of my book "Do the Right Thing" Dialogue: Successful Conversations, Even Public Conversations, Have to Go Two Ways

In the communications business––probably in all businesses––there is nothing quite as frustrating as someone who just won’t listen. We all know the type. Individually, they arrive at faulty conclusions on the basis of suspect or mysterious data and then they defend their position ferociously. No amount of new information––no argument, no matter how eloquent––will overcome their certainty. It can be the same in groups. Great swaths of people can buy into a position or a prejudice, and then hold onto that view against arguments that any reasonable and open-minded person would find overwhelming. It can get to the point where the prospect of successful communications with these people can seem absolutely hopeless.

At which point, it’s good to ask yourself: Who is it who’s not listening? If you have concluded that your audience is ill-informed and unreasonable, what are the chances that you are addressing them respectfully and listening to them openly? If communications have truly broken down, what are the chances that it’s because no one is listening?

In the belligerent world of talk-back media, this is an increasingly common state. We are a society in which everyone is waiting for a chance to talk and too few of us are listening in the meantime. And no wonder. From Plato’s dialogues to CNN’s talking heads, we have nurtured the culture of debate. Of course, no one ever reaches a resolution on the nightly news, and no wonder. That isn’t the point. The TV exercise is designed to entertain, to feature quotable “experts” who will fight for their side and, if well chosen, will reflect the opinion of a large group of viewers. The opposing “expert” will battle with similar intensity and, ideally, will give voice to the bias shared by the remaining members of the audience. When it’s over, the TV host will thank everyone for turning out and invite viewers back for a continuation the next night.

This is a great way to stage television, but a hopelessly inefficient way to advance a thoughtful public policy discussion. The chance of actually changing someone’s mind within this model is incredibly remote. Instead, the whole system tends to solidify the opposing positions––to promote retrenchment. It is equally unlikely that a public “conversation” of this sort will contribute to anyone fully understanding someone else’s point of view. People are so fixated on individual words and phrases–– so intent upon finding a weakness in the other’s argument––that there is no time to look at the big picture.

This is what has led the psychologist and social scientist Daniel Yankelovich to advocate for dialogue as a new way of communication and a new way of understanding public opinion. And the form of dialogue they promote is different from the traditional Socratic or Platonic dialogues. In the old model, dialogue was all about debate––all about argument. In the original version, Socrates would interrogate his dialogue partner, investigating that person’s underlying beliefs in search of some fatal flaw. But while Socrates’ goal was to more fully investigate an issue––to actually achieve greater understanding––those who followed began to use this technique exclusively to pick apart the arguments of their opposition. The goal was no longer to understand; it was to overwhelm, to overcome the other person’s failure to understand.

But dialogue, as defined by Yankelovich, is a different kind of discourse, a respectful conversation aimed at achieving mutual understanding and mutual trust. In his version, dialogue allows people to connect at a deeper level, to actually get to know one another a little better. The point is not for each party to try to subvert the opinion of the other, it is for each to listen and learn––to try to understand one another and, if possible, to discover common interests and common ground. In these circumstances, any resulting change of position can be celebrated by everyone, rather than derided as a loss or a concession. No one “wins” or “loses”––even if one or both parties migrate to new positions along the way.

The two most important aspects to this kind of dialogue are discipline and good will. Participants must be prepared to set aside their old debating habits and follow what Yankelovich describes as the ten ground rules for dialogue:

1. The purpose of dialogue is to understand and learn from one another. Again, you cannot “win” a dialogue.
2. All dialogue participants speak for themselves, not as representatives of groups or special interests. (This is contrary to the television debate, where participants are chosen for their ability to represent interest groups. Once ensconced in the TV studio across the desk from someone whose position they loathe, the participants then speak at one another, even though their principal goal is to speak to the larger TV audience.)
3. Treat everyone in a dialogue as an equal; leave role, status, and stereotypes at the door. (This makes it easier to honor what is being said, rather than who is saying it.)
4. Be open and listen to others even when you disagree, and try not to rush to judgment.
5. Search for assumptions––especially your own.
6. Listen with empathy to the views of others; acknowledge that you have heard what the other person has said, especially when you disagree.
7. Look for common ground.
8. Express disagreement in terms of ideas, not personality or motives.
9. Keep dialogue and decision-making as separate activities. Dialogue should always come first.
10. All points of view deserve respect.

If you can actually follow these guidelines, Yankelovich promises a conversation that will produce a host of benefits. This kind of dialogue:

• Dispels mistrust and creates a climate of good faith,
• Breaks through negative stereotypes, revealing participants’ common humanity,
• Shifts the focus from transactions to relationships, creating community,
• Makes participants more sympathetic to one another even when they disagree,
• Prepares the ground for negotiation or decision-making on emotion laden issues,
• Helps bridge subcultures and clarify value conflicts,
• Expands the number of people committed to the process,
• Brings out the best rather than the worst in people.

The problem is that dialogue gets more difficult as the size of the group increases. The ideal model is probably the face-to-face conversation between two willing participants––two people who are listening, watching body language, and responding appropriately and politely. It gets slightly more difficult as you move dialogue into a small group, and it becomes harder still for companies, non-governmental organizations, or political groups trying to communicate with large stakeholder groups. In most cases, anyone who is communicating with the public must do so through the filter of media, making it hard to get your point across unedited and almost impossible to hear a response. The Internet has made it easier to disseminate information directly, but even public opinion polls and focus groups cannot adequately give you a sense of where the public stands on a particular issue and, even more, where people may be ready or willing to go.

To answer that challenge––to achieve the benefits of dialogue in larger, representative groups––Yankelovich and his partner Steve Rosell founded Viewpoint Learning, Inc., an innovative research company that facilitates what Viewpoint calls “ChoiceDialogues.” These are intensive investigations involving about 40 participants in eight-hour sessions that feature a good deal of two-way learning and teaching. In crafting the ChoiceDialogues process, Yankelovich and Rosell recognized some of the weaknesses of polling and focus groups. Both are inclined to elicit responses that are “top of mind,” opinions that are highly unstable and sometimes fairly misleading. Pollsters are also under extreme pressure not to affect their survey groups, which limits the opportunity they have to learn more about why people think the way they do and where they may be willing to go in the course of shifting their position.

ChoiceDialogues, on the other hand, are informed by a carefully prepared workbook that offers both a good deal of information on the topic in question and a series of values-based choices that may indicate the likely direction of peoples’ thinking. The long time frame (24 times as long as a typical poll and four times as long as the average focus group) also gives participants a chance to work through issues together. It is a supportive environment in which people can change their views as they learn.