Civil Dialogue In Practice

Alright loyal Career Civility readers, how we doing? Has January felt like an entire year to anyone else?

By now, we know that Civil Communication is a means to communicate productively.

But how do we do that?

Today - I am discussing one vehicle to utilize and implement Civil Communication in the workplace and beyond.

Let me introduce to you Civil Dialogue®.

Civil Dialogue® is the act of encouraging discussion of ideas and opinions (Wilson, 2016).

“It is the practice of engaging five members in discussion on a specific topic. There is a facilitator, five chairs that represent the degree to which a person agrees or disagrees with the topic, and there is an audience. The facilitator introduces the topic, the audience listens, and the five members engage in civil dialogue. There is no interrupting, there is civil listening, and there is time for each person to give his or her perspective and opinion on said topic. The audience is then given a chance to ask questions, inquire further about proposed ideas, and ultimately engage critically with the members. In the end, new ideas are shared, opinions are talked about, and all members address difficult topics” (Wilson, pg. 31, 2016).

And yes, I can quote my own work because I have been studying this for the last 5 years.

By employing a structural format of dialogue that includes all members of a workplace team, and even an audience if need be, with an unbiased facilitator (most likely NOT your boss), it gives the team the opportunity to navigate through the potential ‘he said-she said’ that can happen in 1:1s, the awkward silence of team meetings, and the potential gossiping behind others backs. The facilitator (which is usually myself) will gather the problem, present it in a professional and respectful manner, and then allow for conversation to be explored.

Each participant will listen to the prompt statement given by the facilitator, choose their stance on the situation, and take a seat in the chair that represents the stance. For example purposes, the chairs will represent ‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘neutral’, ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’. Once the participants, managers included, take a stance, the discussion will begin.

The facilitator kicks off the dialogue by asking each participant why they chose their chair/their stance on the prompt.

• Each participant gets one to two minutes to explain without interruption.

• From there, the facilitator opens the floor up for discussion amongst the participants.

• This is where the facilitator will observe, listen, and watch for any unproductive statements such as accusatory statements, rude comments, or personal attacks.

The facilitator has the right to stop the discussion at any time but will use his or her best judgement about the process of discussion.

Please note - It is in the hard conversations, or the tough statements, that break through is made.

• After the facilitator gives ten to fifteen minutes of participant discussion, the floor is open for the audience to engage.

• The audience is able to ask any participant for clarification on the thought processes behind their statements, they are able to ask further questions to evoke more questions and they are able to insert their opinion/perspective on the given topic.

• Audience engagement will be another ten to fifteen minutes depending on the level of engagement and size of the audience.

Once the audience has time to share and engage, the facilitator will wrap up the dialogue.

IMPORTANT - at the end of the dialogue - the facilitator will ask each participant to stand up and sit in the chair that now coincides will how they think about the prompt.

Do they now agree? Are they now neutral? Or do the participants stay steadfast with their original decision?

Finally, once chairs are shuffled and seats are taken, the facilitator asks each participant for a closing statement. They will each have a minute to express why they either did or not change seats. Essentially, each employee or manager will be able to express their original opinions, what they learned through the dialogue, and where they stand now.

It is okay if opinions do not change. “This being said, by using Civil Dialogue®, organizations can engage members of the office who disagree mildly to strongly on a topic and can acquire meaningful conversation. When people can discuss “hot topics with cool heads” (Institute for Civil Dialogue, 2012) they can create a new world of communication and understanding. Not everyone comes from the same background, holds the same values, or has the same perspective on life, therefore it is even more important to incorporate civil dialogue into business practice.” (Wilson, pg. 31, 2016).

What do you think? I’d love to hear from you!

References -

Genette, J., Olson, C. D., & Linde, J. A. (2018). Hot topics, cool heads: A handbook for civil dialogue. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.

Wilson, Jenna (2016). Thesis Defense (Unpublished). Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.