« “It seems to be well-received.” | Main | How NOT to write an employee handbook »

February 06, 2008

“Two monologues do not make a dialogue”

I took a trip to Denver earlier this week and, as usual when I travel, brought along a book. I had high hopes for this one—The Design of Future Things by Don Norman, the psychologist and industrial designer—because I find this author thoughtful and provocative. (For more on the book, Don Norman and his approach, visit www.jnd.org)

Unfortunately, the book was not what I expected—it was focused on technology design, not general design, so it was rather techno-geeky (although useful for people designing a product). However, one section, called “Two monologues do not make a dialogue,” that struck me as relevant for anyone who communicates.

In the section, Mr. Norman is writing about the problem with many machines (including navigation systems); they’re not truly interactive and don’t collaborate. To make his point, Mr. Norman cites the Greek philosopher Socrates.

“Two thousand years ago, Socrates argued that the book would destroy people’s ability to reason,” Mr. Norman writes. “He believed in dialogue, in conversation and debate. But with a book, there is no debate: the written word cannot answer back.

“Today, the book is such a symbol of learning and knowledge that we laugh at this argument. But take it seriously for a moment . . . Socrates’s point is valid: a technology that gives no opportunity for discussion, explanation, or debate is a poor technology.”

Mr. Norman goes on to reflect on his own experience as a business executive and as a chair of university departments. He’s learned that “the process of making a decision is often more important than the decision itself. When a person makes decisions without explanation or consultation, people neither trust nor like the result, even if it is the identical course of action they would have taken after discussion or debate.”

And here’s the crux of the matter for me. Mr. Norman writes, “Many business leaders ask, ‘Why waste time with meetings when the end result will be the same?’ But the end result is not the same, for although the decision itself is identical, they way it will be carried and executed and, perhaps most importantly, the way it will be handled if things do not go as planned will be very different with a collaborating, understanding team than with one that is just following orders.”

Here’s the big question: If dialogue is so important for gaining buy-in, why is there so little dialogue in employee communication? So much of communication is simply information delivered. There’s a shocking lack of face-to-face, and what exists is predominantly one-way (think of a town hall meeting with mostly presentation and only 10 minutes for Q&A).

Perhaps most surprisingly, even channels that provide rich opportunities for dialogue—like an intranet—are underutilized. How many companies have dared to offer message boards, wikis, blogs, and other interactive forums?

Until communication becomes a dialogue—offering access and participation—it’s like a book—containing information, for sure, but little in the way of engagement.

Posted by Alison Davis at February 6, 2008 05:08 PM

Comments

Posted by: Pedro Alves at February 17, 2008 03:17 PM