Understanding Dialogue

The Art of Thinking Together

Dialogue 

The Art of Thinking Together by William Isaacs is a book that focuses on the key aspects of dialogue and the way they ought to be conducted in order for thoughts to flow. In this reflective text, I will focus on the core reasoning and key takeaways, and how they apply to my team, Averi, and the experiences I have had thus far. It is easy to fall into traps and even more difficult to realize that you have fallen into them. The four main points I will focus on are as follows: suspension, listening, respect, and last but not least, voice. All four are the foundations of successful dialogue within a team. 

Suspension 

It is by far one of the hardest ones to overcome. Whenever someone wishes to say something, people want to immediately jump in and add their own thoughts. Isaacs (1999) describes suspension as not acting on your assumptions immediately, not forcing them on others. I personally do not struggle with this too much, but many others do, and it makes it all the more difficult for the discussion to flow without interruption. This may be the main reason why people within the team feel as though their voices are not heard; others take up all the space and do not allow room for others to think and provide a moment for them to voice their opinions. 

It has happened countless times. We have gotten better at it, but we certainly still have a long way to go. One of the solutions we had thought of was having the people who talk most of the time limit their turns speaking, in order to suspend their opinions and thoughts and allow team cognition to function without the constant disruption of different assumptions and opinions. We have yet to put it into practice, but I certainly believe it would grant valuable practice, if not a solution, for suspension. 

Listening 

Listening is the hardest thing. It is the master key to all other doors of dialogue. If you merely wait for your turn while constructing your counterargument, you have got it all wrong. Isaacs (1999) explains listening as understanding how meaning is being formed. It differs from suspension in the sense that suspension involves having a thought already formulated in your head, whereas listening means waiting before even thinking about formulating an answer and truly taking in what the other person or people are saying. 

I struggle with this myself. I tend to suspend, and because of that, I forget to listen. I have a thought, and it takes me a while to formulate it, which results in me not fully taking in what others are really saying. I know I am not the only one who struggles with this. Listening is already hard enough, not to mention when there are eighteen other people voicing their thoughts. I have fallen into a trap a couple of times where I wish to listen so intently that I end up not talking at all. The balance is enormously difficult to find, but it is a skill that can be developed over time by practicing both in and out of the work environment. 

Respect 

The murder of dialogue. You can do all the others, but if respect is lacking, everything else will fall short. It is the literal foundation, the resource upon which all others are built. It is difficult for others to voice their opinions if they feel as though respect is not given, even though respect should be given in these circumstances. I do believe that those who want respect give respect. It may be quite petty or immature, but I do believe that respect is earned and should be mutual; otherwise, I will struggle to show respect in return. 

That does not mean I will go into a fit if someone does not provide even the slightest respect, but rather that I will struggle to see their points or may disagree with them out of spite, playing a little bit of the devil’s advocate. Isaacs (1999) says that respect is treating everyone as contributors, even if you disagree. This is likely the one that I struggle with the most, not that I struggle with respect toward others, but with maintaining my cool if someone does not show respect to my idea or point of view. 

I realize I would make my life easier if I simply took it on the chin, but then again, is it really sufficient dialogue if I do not feel respect coming from someone? I think not. Regardless, it is something that needs to be clear to everyone in Averi: what does respect mean to each of us, and how do we show it to others? It can either be the bodyguards of dialogue or its murderers. 

Voice 

Voice goes hand in hand with suspension in our case within Averi. There are those who suspend more than they voice, if they voice at all, and by the end they feel as though their opinions were never heard. We have come a long way regarding this. At the start, there was little to no voicing from about fifty percent of the team. Now, I would say it is more balanced. We still have quiet individuals, but it is nowhere near as devastating as it used to be. 

To me, it is infuriating not to hear someone’s thoughts when I genuinely crave their input and opinions. On the other hand, Isaacs (1999) mentions that voicing is also about speaking authentically, not strategically. That is something I struggle with as well. I have always followed and invested much time into my future ambitions in politics; therefore, I have adopted a sense of reserved speech in which I carefully think through what I wish to say and how to say it. It should be raw and real, not that what I say is less genuine, but rather that it veils the naked reality of what I say. 

It is still an issue within the team, but it is also something I wrestle with personally from time to time. I have received feedback about it many times, and I think I have improved, but man-oh-man, do I still have a long way to go. It is not an easy balance to find either; you have to be able to say the naked truth for what it is, without trying to dress it up with pomp. 

Summary 

It is difficult to point out which of these is the hardest or the most important, nor will I try to convince you. All of them are hard. All of them are important. There is no secret trick or singular practice that will provide you with the means of conducting perfect dialogue. We are human, after all. There are days when all of these come naturally, and there are days when you wake up on the wrong side of the bed and decide to choose violence. 

All four go hand in hand. It is impossible to have one without the others, and all of us should strive to practice perfecting them, even though we never fully will. It is difficult, if not impossible, to measure the success of suspending, listening, respecting, and voicing. As the saying goes, “it takes two to tango.” You or I alone cannot have perfect dialogue; we need everyone to participate. Either we go forward together or not at all. 

If you imagine yourself as a soldier, suspension is your weapon that you must lay down in order to understand the other party and not give in to assumptions. Listening is your helmet, which you must take off to hear what the other has to say. Respect is your Kevlar, which you must strip down to become vulnerable and show the other that you value them. Voicing is asking honestly whether they want a drink. Isaacs (1999) mentions that one of the issues that arises in dialogue is that we tend to come to conversations well prepared, leaving no room for surprises, like a cold beer. We must be open, honest, respectful, and vulnerable. I would assume most people would rather walk into a bar than a battlefield. That is exactly what dialogue is: an honest flow of ideas and curiosity, not a debate or a battle to be conquered and won. 

It is a book worth reading. These are things we should all practice, but not only for that, for the insights it provides and lenses which highlight the holes you may have in dialogue. It makes you think and reflect on your own shortcomings and motivates you to better yourself. Dialogue is the key to true and honest communication and understanding yourself too. Isaacs (1999) claims that dialogue is essential to solve problems of multicultural, societal, and global issues. If we all adopted this mindset and it was considered the norm worldwide, perhaps the world would be a better place.