Dialogue vs Debate

Before continuing our review of Appreciative Inquiry and the ways in which it improves the experiences shared by our Common Tables Members, let's first take a week or so to be sure we are all on the same page as far as understanding the differences between Dialogue and Debate.

First let's agree that the differences between and among dialogue and debate should not imply that dialogue is "good" and that debate is "bad." There are times when debate is useful instructional strategy - though we suggest that in most cases your Common Tables gathering is not an appropriate place for debate.

The the list below is simply intended to highlight some of the differences between Dialogue and Debate:

• Dialogue is collaborative: two or more sides work together toward common understanding.
• Debate is oppositional: two sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong.
• In dialogue, finding common ground is the goal.
• In debate, winning is the goal.
• In dialogue, one listens to the other side(s) in order to understand, find meaning and find agreement.
• In debate, one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments.
• Dialogue enlarges and possibly changes a participants point of view.
• Debate affirms a participant's own point of view.
• Dialogue reveals assumptions for re-evaluation.
• Debate defends assumptions as truth.
• Dialogue causes introspection on ones own position.
• Debate causes critique of the other position.
• Dialogue opens the possibility of reaching a better solution than any of the original solutions.
• Debate defends one's own positions as the best solution and excludes other solutions.
• Dialogue creates an open-minded attitude: an openness to being wrong and an openness to change.
• Debate creates a close-minded attitude, a determination to be right.
• In dialogue, one submits ones best thinking, knowing that other people's reflections will help improve it rather than destroy it.
• In debate, one submits one's best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right.
• Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending one's beliefs.
• Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one's beliefs.
• In dialogue, one searches for basic agreements.
• In debate, one searches for glaring differences.
• In dialogue one searches for strengths in the other positions.
• In debate one searches for flaws and weaknesses in the other position.
• Dialogue involves a real concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate or offend.
• Debate involves a countering of the other position without focusing on feelings or relationship and often belittles or deprecates the other person.
• Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can put them into a workable solution.
• Debate assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has it.
• Dialogue remains open-ended.
• Debate implies a conclusion.

Adapted from a paper prepared by Shelley Berman, which was based on discussions of the Dialogue Group of the Boston Chapter of Educators for Social Responsibility (ESR).

Debate vs Dialogue - A Business Perspective

This article is a few years old, but it brings up some valuable points! We felt it worth reposting here:

Debate vs. dialogue: Times call for knowing the difference

Friday, September 17, 2004
The Business Journal of the Greater Triad Area - by Jan Peeples The Business Journal Serving the Greater Triad Area

The political season is upon us and the debate has begun. Rarely in our history have battle lines been so clearly drawn and the public so polarized by differing political views.

In businesses across the country, water-cooler conversations that begin as informal banter about current events turn quickly into hotly contested political debates, sometimes ending in misunderstanding and damaged relations. Passions of the political season demonstrate the ongoing struggle within organizations to deal constructively with diverse values and points of view.

Companies that invest heavily in developing and nurturing teamwork know that different perspectives are assets, but only when team members understand the difference between dialogue and debate.

Dialogue requires that participants suspend their own assumptions so they can truly hear thoughts expressed by others. The reward of dialogue is allowing everyone to articulate personal perspectives and be heard, not judged.

By contrast, debate requires that one person try to convince another of a particular position. Mutual learning is not a goal.

Why does debate come so naturally to us while dialogue seems to be a learned skill?

If you think back to the water-cooler scene described above, informal banter becomes debate when someone's value system is threatened. Then defenses are raised and counterpunches fly.

Because political positions are so closely tied to our personal histories, we bring a set of beliefs into the conversation that are an important part of our identities. If our opinions are invalidated, so are we.

This scene is played out in many business settings, even when the conversation is not about highly charged matters of national politics.

Organizational direction, personal power and accountability are subtexts for many business discussions, whether stated or not. Without a trusting environment for dialogue, every discussion has the potential to end in debate.

Preoccupation with making a point, as opposed to hearing other points of view, can be dangerous. Examine recent well-publicized corporate failures. Among the causes were an inability or unwillingness to hear other points of view.

Enron Corp., Tyco Inc. and WorldCom Inc. all had one thing in common -- a corporate culture that discouraged dialogue. Greed and spin at the top went unchallenged, with no capacity for learning.

Voices that offered warning were squelched. The outcomes speak for themselves.

The best recent example of a national dialogue is the work of the 9/11 Commission. Although partisan affiliations were clear in public forums, behind the scenes the committee was committed to inquiry and dialogue for the purpose of learning together and reaching a consensus on recommendations.

Regardless of how one feels about the published report, the process itself is noteworthy.
Perhaps this political season will focus our attention on the importance of a national dialogue rather than a national debate.

Furthermore, let's hope it reminds us that organizational cultures that encourage dialogue will reap the benefits of employees' best thinking and collaborative workplaces that contribute to our nation's innovation and productivity.