The Difference between Dialogue and Discussion

Dialogic Learning is about learning through dialogue. I want to share an essential distinction between dialogue and discussion. This is a crucial lesson I reflect on every day.

Here is David Bohm explaining the subtle difference.

Defining Dialogue

“Dialogue” comes from the Greek word dialogos. Logos means “the word,” or in our case we would think of the “meaning of the word.” And dia means “through” — it doesn’t mean “two.” The picture or image that this derivation suggests is of a stream of meaning flowing among and through us and between us. This will make possible a flow of meaning in the whole group, out of which may emerge some new understanding. It’s something new, which may not have been in the starting point at all. It’s something creative. 

Contrast this with the word “discussion,” which has the same root as “percussion” and “concussion.” It really means to break things up. It emphasizes the idea of analysis, where there may be many points of view, and where everybody is presenting a different one — analyzing and breaking up. That obviously has its value, but it is limited, and it will not get us very far beyond our various points of view.

David Bohm

To sum it up, dialogue creates a new understanding, whereas discussion is analysing different points of view.

An Education Example

I remember a rare moment with a group of teachers I worked with – we had been involved in a rich dialogue/discussion. I explained the difference between the types of talk, and we reflected on the conversation we had just experienced. It was enlightening to consider how long we spent in each.

Talking in groups is messy. It rarely, if ever, fits neatly into one category. Facilitation helps with having clear intentions before starting a meeting or session.

Meeting Protocols

Use these questions to consider framing your session, workshop or meeting.

  • What type of thinking is needed during our time together?
  • Will we be generating new ideas today?
  • What disposition will be most helpful for this work?
  • What do I need to do to be present and prepared for this meeting?
  • How will my mindset help?
  • What are the conditions and protocols we need to pay attention to make the most of our group meeting?

Conclusion

Most of the teacher or leader sessions I am involved in require the group to move nimbly between different types of talk, discussion and dialogue.

By having a strong understanding of the different types of talk, we can create the right conditions for a successful experience.

Have you experienced this distinction? How might you use this new understanding of your developmental work? What other questions do you have that are worth considering?

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez

Practised Non-Judgementalism

Last year I spent time with Dr Neil Hopkin the Principal of The British International School in Shanghai.

Within a plethora of expertise, he has been coaching for decades and I got the chance to absorb some wisdom about his approach to coaching. This is an area of continued growth for me, as I start to wrap some solid ideas around years of experience.

Neil spoke about the imperative of “practised non-judgmentalism” and how a coach uses this as the basis for their disposition. This resonated strongly with me and has been a phrase I keep coming back to.

It is always a privilege to be in a coaching space with teams or individuals. The idea of practised non-judgmentalism signals to me the importance of taking an open disposition to what you might experience together.

If I were to pre-empt an idea or a course of action, or to offer a judgement too soon, that might close off a story or a trail of thought. There is a strong association between judgement and closure.

But if my demeanour and default disposition are non-judgmental than we remain open to potential ideas, we stay open to new pathways and we allow stories to be shared more freely.

Another benefit for the listener in taking this approach is clarity. It would be clear what I would have to do. I would sit with you and simply focus my effort on understanding and listening. My energy and thoughts are not taken up grappling with a judgement – as that imposes on your story.

I think this benefits from being intentional, explicitly stated and practised. Our brains will naturally drift to judgement if we don’t.

The reason non-judgment is used is because left alone, the brain will automatically judge things as good or bad, right or wrong, fair or unfair, important or unimportant, urgent or non-urgent and so on. This happens so fast that our experiences are automatically colored right when we get to them, so mindfulness is about being aware of that and taking a fresh perspective.

(Taken from What Is Non-Judgmental Awareness, Anyway? by Elisha Goldstein)

Another benefit is that this approach, practised non-judgmentalism, requires us to also practise being present. We cannot be drawn to other things, we focus on the interaction we are in and our own listening.

#28daysofwriting

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

Responsive Leadership – leading from the back to the front

 

I recently stumbled upon a new label for the behaviours we associate with leadership. In this short clip Nipun Mehta explains a “different paradigm of leadership, which he calls “laddership””.

After rolling the idea around a little I thought I would share some thoughts on how it relates to my experience of leadership and development in schools and beyond.

Laddership refers to the role of the leader. The ladder being like the leader. So that others may climb rungs we might create and reach new heights above us. It reminds me of servant leadership.

This way of thinking is placed in contrast to the “lead from the front” type of ideology, that some might consider to be a traditional leadership paradigm.

In education we can be lulled into thinking that leadership only occurs at the upper echelons of a school administration or in those roles with “leader” in them. The career path is set out in front of many aspiring young leaders and it often only looks like a pyramid. This reflects the typical paradigm of a hierarchy in schools and school systems.

My teaching experience was similar. I was tapped on the shoulder for middle leadership within my first year out of university and the steps up were pretty clear. Maybe you have been presented with a similar direction: “If you want to be a leader follow this traditional path.”

The idea of a ladder for others to progress sits well with me. I now know that such an idea is relevant to anyone aspiring to lead. There are different ways to lead, and many different paths to help others rise above you. Education needs to offer more paths through leadership and not just those that point upwards.

Ultimately we need to put energy into redefining leadership in schools so that more educators understand the impact they can have on others.

I started a blog that shared my ideas, my thinking and my classroom experiences. That helped me understand the impact I could have on others. I realised I could lead in a different way – fast forward a decade and I still keep that idea at the heart of my work. I am leading by creating the conditions for others to progress and develop. It might not say Principal or Headteacher on the office door (I don’t actually have an office door) but I know my work is leadership.

Leadership can be defined in multiple ways depending on the sector or domain it sits within. But also defining leadership within a sector has great contextual dependency too. Education is no different.

The leadership that needs to be shown in the emergency services during the bushfire seasons, here in Australia, is very different to the leadership needed at a K-12 school to develop an innovative culture.

In our attempts to seek out the fundemental truths about leadership perhaps we polarise our thinking too much. We might covet the entrepreneurial mindset in schools and look to business for ideas on development, but we should never forego the intimate understanding of the educational context we work in. Cookie cutters are not a leadership tool.

When we setup Laddership Vs Leadership and suggest a shifting of paradigms, or systems of thought, we create these false dichotomies. So although the idea of creating ladders resonates, I think it is unrealistic to set up competing concepts in this way – a choice we have to make, a move we have to make.

In the Design of Business Roger Martin explains a series of ideas related to design thinking and leadership, for example: exploration Vs exploitation; analysis Vs intuition; originality Vs mastery. You can see the others in the image I have added. But the choice is not “either or”. Creative problem solving requires a range and mixture of different thinking modes at different times. It reminds me to consider the balance of different types of thinking rather than such polarised choices.

Design Thinking.005

Adaptive and responsive leadership perhaps describes this best. In certain situations in schools a “lead from the front” style of leadership is the most appropriate. When there is high urgency for change or important processes that need to be modelled and established. Or when we are attempting to shift ingrained habits and behaviours to something different, maybe “follow me” works best.

That same leadership approach should adapt and respond to the context it is in. As Nipun Mehta explains, shifting to the back and allowing others to push ahead and lead the way. Developmental work in schools often needs people to buy in and have ownership. These are good opportunities for intentional and thoughtful design leadership. The best possible conditions for progress and development are (co)created.

When I am working with teams I am attempting to create these conditions. I use a range of protocols that help establish the expectations for the time together. One of them is about how we each need to take responsibility to balance our participation in the session.

Step up and step back is a protocol about session participation but it also has a strong likeness to the idea of responsive leadership. You don’t have to make a solitary choice, you don’t need to operate under a fixed ideaology. Adapt, change and respond to what is in front of you. Increase your awareness of this balancing act.

Nelson Mandela refers to a balance:

It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership.

I have presented similar ideas in the past about teaching and learning. Perhaps the true art of leadership is in the complex balancing act between these paradigms. It is not in the extremes.

  • Strike a balance
  • Respond and adapt to what is in front of you
  • Step up and step back
  • Leverage your empathy

The leaders I work with every week wrestle with the tension and complexity of real situations. These constantly demand both the subtle art of nudging others to move ahead, with pointing the direction and inviting others to follow.

In my experience leadership is as much about creating the conditions for others to develop as it is helping to direct that progress.

Photo by Daryan Shamkhali