Πηγή: A User’s Guide to Power
How to get things done? Talk.
by Julie Diamond
Driving to work last month, I was listening to the news about the start of the Syrian peace talks. I found myself imagining the room and the people involved. It was probably a large conference room or council room, and they probably sat at around a large conference table, or in tiered rows. And there must have been translators present, and security personnel, as well as assistants, staff members, and the media. And each person would have been wearing badges and name tags.
And how did the actual talks, go, I wondered? Were they really “talking?” There was a strict agenda, known ahead of time; therefore each member probably didn’t speak extemporaneously, but would have a prepared position, list of points , or a script or strategy they intend to follow. And given the size of it, there would have been a facilitator, and perhaps signaling devices that people used to indicate when they wanted to speak. I just can’t see people raising their hands to get the floor. Maybe there wasn’t even space for that; perhaps people were just assigned a time to speak, and had to simply weigh in on the proposal.
However it was structured, everything about it ensured that the members did not have direct contact, that spontaneous talk was limited, and straightforward interaction non-existent. And then it struck me. This is the basis of war: separate the players, ensure maximum distance, and at all costs, prevent the humanizing effect of face-to-face, informal, and personal interaction. Because in order for compromise, resolution, give and take, and the like to occur, people have to actually interact. The entire set up predicted the lack of outcome. How the heck can anything constructive happen in that atmosphere? And why are they called “talks?” Could I solve my conflicts in that atmosphere? Could you? Are those players any different from you or I?
Methods like Deep Democracy, Multi-track Diplomacy and others understand the need for informal, facilitated forums where personal interaction can occur, where people can engage with other viewpoints, and ultimately find points of human commonality.
The point I want to make is not how to solve conflict, but about the vital importance of dialogue. At the risk of making too broad a generalization, everything that humans accomplish, from peace accords to heart surgery to landing on the moon happen through a single, indispensable mechanism: talk. Whether something succeeds or fails hinges on the quality of dialogue between people. And nowhere is this truer than with conflict: no matter how politically complex, intractable, or widespread the conflict, solutions ultimately depend on how well people talk with each other.
This is why I’ve been focusing lately on feedback and performance conversations: they are microcosms of bigger and gnarlier conflicts, and involve this one central, yet vital set of skills: the ability to have and hold a conversation. Talk is our primary tool as humans. It’s a unique evolutionary advantage, up there with opposable appendages. While talk is an essential human skill, doing it well requires training. Talking is a lot like eating. We all do it. In fact, we have to do it, but it can be done with more or less awareness, with better and worse results, in healthy or unhealthy ways. Talk creates peace, and also incites war.
What are the skills of dialogue? What do we need to be able to do to have productive dialogue? Some of the skills are: Having to say difficult things and make yourself understood without shutting down the other person. Challenging assumptions while inviting dialogue. Staying present and focused when things get hot. Fielding challenge and criticism without defense. Surfacing topics that no one wants to talk about in a way that fosters engagements. Ram Charan, organizational consultant and author, sums up the power of talk in organizational contexts this way:
Dialogue is the basic unit of work in an organization. The quality of the dialogue determines how people gather and process information, how they make decisions, and how they feel about one another and about the outcome of these decisions. Dialogue can lead to new ideas and speed as a competitive advantage. It is the single-most important factor underlying the productivity and growth of the knowledge worker. Indeed, the tone and content of dialogue shapes people’s behaviors and beliefs—that is, the corporate culture—faster and more permanently than any reward system, structural change, or vision statement I’ve seen.
This topic is going to be front and center in my year-long training on Deep Democracy facilitation with Anima Leadership which starts March 28. And while the group might start out with name tags, I bet they won’t be needed for long.