Openness and admitting other people are hardly possible in times of intense emotions such as anger, fear, distress and so on. Nevertheless, these emotions are quite common in these circumstances. That is why in such cases it makes sense to start with discussing what has been going on and examining the emotions evoked, in order to calm these emotions down a little. Those involved then tell what has made this particular dialogue necessary: How has it come about, what has gone wrong and who and what have caused that? After that has been worked through, everybody relates what these events have meant for them personally.
The emphasis here is on how the events felt, how these feelings have developed over time and what kind if influence these feelings have had on their further life. Apart from the fact that such a discussion of the emotions involved gives a first impression of the problem, it becomes clear in this way what the problem means, and has meant, at the experiential level.
This approach has several positive effects.
To start with, by venting and naming the emotions involved, they become less all deter- mining. Furthermore, we get a more realistic picture of each other’s emotions. We learn to see the emotions for what they are: normal reactions to infringements, losses and threats.
Also it is often instructive to find out that anger sometimes serves to cover up sadness or anxiety. Sincerely sharing all of this, including the personal vulnerability that it brings, creates a bond and boosts mutual trust.
The next step is about clarifying each other’s views on the present state of affairs and their foundations. Ask the other person what he sees as the core of the problem at hand.
What is important to the other person? Find out on what ideas these views are founded and what they imply. What possibilities for bringing about improvements does the other person see? What pitfalls does the other person expect and how does plan to get around them? In this stage, it is explicitly not the intention to overcome or otherwise annihilate these differences. On the contrary, this stage is especially concerned with clarifying and mapping the differences. Doing so is essential to the success of the dialogue. In William Blake’s words, ‘without contraries no progression’ (cited in Berlin, 2000, p. 305).
A useful exercise here is making a point of suspending any form of judgment in a group meeting for a certain period. We can videotape these exchanges and discuss them afterwards. The goal of this videotaping is to demonstrate how difficult it is to suspend our judgments, as well as how deeply judging is rooted in our attitudes. In the end, judging means that we approach the world from our own assumptions as if those were the only ones possible. Moreover, by judging we allow ourselves to reject what the other does, as if it concerns a matter of good and evil. This kind of rejection is not wrong in itself, but it is good to be aware of the mechanism. It is also good to realize that judging gives you, as if on its own accord, a feeling of control: judging serves as an indirect but very effective magical spell to make our own assumptions inviolable.
A useful guideline when examining each other’s assumptions is setting out to explore together our positive goals, as well as the elements and characteristics that we experience as unpleasant or dysfunctional. We then can examine these dysfunctional and unpleasant sides in more depth. There is a good chance that these sides are related to our ‘allergies’ (see Chapter 7), the characteristics we love to hate in other people. Identifying our allergies will give us clear pointers to the nature of our developmental tasks and challenges. Identifying our allergies also gives us indications for rephrasing these characteristics as a deformation of characteristics that are essentially good. We can use advocacy and inquiry techniques, especially the ones that work best for us, to learn more about these allergies, challenges, core competencies and personal pitfalls (see Chapter 7).
From time to time we come across stumbling blocks in this respect, both in ourselves and in others. Some issues are just not verbalized in discussions that can solve those issues, while those involved do discuss them with trusted other people. These are the so-called unspeakables (Argyris & Schon, 1978; see Chapter 1). Making them discussable is in itself not impossible, but it is a delicate matter that demands tact and social skill as well as mutual trust.
Sometimes, however, blocks are more deeply rooted. For instance, we cannot implement certain ways to solve frequently occurring problems in a particular organization when such an approach goes against the grain of that organization. In some government departments, for example, it is not done to directly approach someone who works either in an echelon several steps higher or a different department. So in certain organizations, it is impossible even to think of perfectly sound solutions for certain problems if these solutions imply that a personal failure at a considerably higher level must be specified. Needless to say, getting around or solving such blocks demands a great deal of circumspection and skill.
In this respect, it is essential from time to time to describe the state of affairs from the perspective of the other person. Make this into a standard approach! It is also a matter of skillfully and carefully applying the rules of feedback (see Chapter 6) and explaining each time why we are asking or saying something.
Furthermore, it is here of crucial importance to be willing to really see the other person with his good and strong points, his possibilities and the surplus or exaggeration of these (see Chapter 7), as well as in the incidental lacunas and distortions (see Chapter 6).
This is often a difficult stage. The underlying dividedness becomes more and more visible, which often leads to frustration. Opinions also get more and more extreme, usually because the perception of the other group is distorted. Back and forth, all kinds of stereotypes and prejudices come to the fore. These perceptual distortions, stereotypes and prejudices are mainly a matter of the dynamics of inter-group processes as described in social psychology (for example Gudykunst & Kim, 1992; Meertens, 1980). This stage of the dialogue can be quite unpleasant, and can go on for some time without any visible progress. During this stage, it is of utmost importance not to alienate ourselves from each other, to remain communicating, not to panic and not to fall into avoidance tactics. We must ask ourselves from what assumptions we are listening, what is going on and what can be learned from this. All of this asks for discipline, courage and trust (Sengeet al., 1994). Another important principle is from time to time to point out what we all have in common and what we all are aiming to achieve.
The next step is to work out how we can integrate our assumptions with those of the others in such a way that something new comes about, the new basis for a reality that is more rewarding to all parties than the present one. Being rewarding to all parties implies
that we are looking for a reality in which the goals of all assumptions can be realized, so that no party experiences substantial disadvantages from it. Consequently, this approach does not entail a compromise but a win–win solution, one that allows all parties to realize their underlying intentions.
In practice, it appears that a win–win solution is often the consequence of a sharp as possible formulation of the different, apparently incompatible assumptions in the form of a dilemma (Hampden-Turner, 1994: Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2002). Being able to come up with such a phrasing is indeed a crucial skill in this context. When everybody has all the available information and a good grasp on the dilemma, the next step is joint brainstorming about ways to solve the dilemma. We can apply here all the creativity techniques described in Chapter 6.
When we transcend the dilemma in a win–win solution – in Hegel’s terms, integrating the antitheses into a synthesis – something magic comes about. By creating a new meaning, we change reality. We get new insights and create a new truth. This act of creation is an outstanding example of giving meaning. In this respect, Freire calls dialogue a creative process that creates meaning. ‘Speaking a true word transforms reality,’ he states (Freire, 1970, cited in Dixon, 1998). This act of creation amounts to our thinking of something that was not yet there and realizing or actualizing it in a material way as well. When we succeed, a very pleasant feeling ensues. I use the term ‘realizing’ as it means having or getting knowledge of, or insight into, something, as well as making something real or actual.
The next step consists of critically looking at preliminary solutions. Can it be done better? More pleasantly? In a smarter way? The results can be then tested with the help of criteria such as those formulated in Chapter 6. Lastly, we need to formulate agreements to which all parties are willing and able to adhere. Record the agreements very meticulously.
The following step is that everybody records whether and how the new arrangement works, what incidentally can be done better, as well as how these improvements might look. If we have accomplished all that, we set a date for a new meeting in which we can discuss how things are working out in practice.
The effectiveness of the dialogue approach presupposes that all parties want to solve the problems in each of these steps and also believe that it can be done well, something that does not seem very self-evident beforehand. Successful accomplishment implies that all parties involved must know how a dilemma works. Moreover, the participants in the dialogue must feel challenged to proceed as discussed before, with the help of inquiry and advocacy, without becoming defensive and without drifting apart in unnecessary ways. Such an approach makes high demands on the participants’ intellectual and emotional powers. For instance, the parties must be adept at logical reasoning, assessing the value of arguments and drawing conclusions. Moreover, they must be willing, if necessary, to change their views. Often it helps to engage a special discussion leader to facilitate the accomplishment of all challenges involved in the different steps. The role of such a discussion leader is elaborated later in this chapter.
From a completely different perspective, Altshuller, a Russian scientist who examined tens of thousands of patent applications, mentioned the above-described method of as sharply as possible formulating dilemmas as the most important element of the best meth- ods for creating inventions (www.trizexperts.net). Goldratt, an author and organizational consultant who occupies himself with improving organizational logistics, speaks in this context of ‘evaporating clouds’ (Goldratt, 1990); that is, solving a dilemma by coming to a synthesis in which the paradoxes and contradictions at the level of everyday reality are
overcome. In terms of game theory, win–win solutions involve each time creating mutual dependence and non-zero-sum solutions for the benefit of all players involved (Wright, 2001). The great gain of striving for win–win solutions is that optimal solutions are reached that can also count on the full support of all participants.