Dialogue: A “simple” solution always worth a try

In a world of intractable problems that often seem to demand complex or high-tech solutions, what is one simple way to cut through the layers and build a consensus to move forward? Start talking…face to face.

Although not a guaranteed remedy, getting people with different interests in the same room to hash out an issue is a tried and true method of dealing with all sorts of impasses. Bringing different sides to the table to sit down and talk together, or creating forums for discussion is a powerful, time-tested tool, whether the parties are in a dispute, have different interests, are communicating poorly, or are merely not paying attention to each other’s concerns. Discussing issues over a meal is even better. Apparently, sharing food has a positive impact on negotiations, according to The Economist.

It is striking how often poor communication comes up as an issue in the news, and — just as striking — how often good communication is considered part of the solution to problems large and small. From international summits to talks on climate change to committee meetings, to mediation as an alternative to court proceedings, to couples’ therapy, creating the space for conversation is at the heart of many solutions. In Eastern Europe, I once evaluated a USAID project whose purpose was to improve economic governance by promoting public private dialogue (PPD). For the uninitiated, PPD is a thing — with its own website , charter, and handbook. About $20 million in project funds were spent in convening stakeholders from government, business and civil society. These resources also covered organizing meetings and retreats on reforms in different sectors. In addition, the project complemented the dialogue forums with analytical work on individual reforms. Guess what? The public private dialogue approach was, by and large, perceived as effective by all three stakeholder groups. The PPD platform did ensure that in many cases the reforms incorporated the interests of the different actors, and, by doing so, helped move them forward. The initiative was seen as one of the most important influences on reforms.

Just getting parties to talk seems like such a simple thing, compared with all the thorny problems facing society, and the sophisticated solutions being promoted (artificial intelligence, anyone?). And talking really means talking, not texting, videoconferencing, or some other forum of digital communication. I’m not denying that these have their uses, but nothing seems to be as effective as face-to-face meetings for building rapport. How else to explain the estimated 462 million business trips taken in the U.S. (in 2017)? Think of the awkward pauses during conference calls, or the unreliable technology that shuts you off in the middle of a videoconference. But even if these issues were addressed somehow, there is a qualitative difference to talking to someone sitting in front of you.

Pay attention and you’ll see that meeting in order to talk is a solution to many, many problems. In her book Leadership in Turbulent Times , Doris Kearns Goodwin recounts how Teddy Roosevelt brought mine owners and workers together to resolve the months-long 1902 anthracite coal strike by United Mine Workers of America, which was threatening to cause major social disruptions. A recent Financial Times(behind paywall) article by Sylvaine Chassany describes French President Emmanuel Macron’s initiative to connect with citizens by holding conversations around the country — organized by En Marche party moderators. Although the word “engagement” is overused, Macron’s motive was to enable people to share their concerns directly with the government. Of course, resolutions to virtually all violent conflicts, are, at one point or another, sought through multi-party talks: North Korea, Iran, Ukraine and so on. Of course, it doesn’t always work out.

There are alternatives. One example would be the one-sided resolution delivered by crushing defeat if you’re on the losing side. There is a school of thought that this approach is actually preferred, as it is stable and final. Continued non-cooperation, or stalemate, is also very common. Or how about endless conflict? Examples of the latter that come to mind are the Israel-Palestine and Afghanistan conflicts. In fact, Wikipedia lists 55 ongoing conflicts that have lasted at least 20 years apiece. Whether these alternatives are preferred or not, they are depressingly widespread. Winston Churchill reportedly said “to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war,” or words to that effect.

What talks can do

Talking things over with others is a good idea even when you are not at war. It can serve all kinds of ends. Beyond resolving conflicts, it is a good a way of sharing news or information (e.g. the press conference), obtaining information (e.g. interviews), exploring opportunities (e.g. business meetings); promoting ideas (e.g. during campaigning by politicians and activists), or just building trust by bringing in the personal element, when previously it was all about power or preferences. Talking is, admittedly, not necessarily a solution in and of itself. However, it seems that it has some attributes that are conducive to finding solutions. What might they be? I propose the following:

• Just showing up for talks demonstrates a willingness to listen to the other side. It signals a cooperative posture, giving both sides confidence that they are not wasting their time.
• By their nature, talks force the other side to listen to other views, positions, perspectives, and whatever else they need to get off their chest. Otherwise, outside of talking, the information the other side wants to share may primarily be seen via propaganda, or (possibly biased) media like the press or social media. Listening to others express themselves will probably lead to their views being considered, at a minimum.
• Talks can ease tension. They allow different sides to express their positions.
• A discussion forum can empower people who felt their voices weren’t being heard. This can help even the playing field
•  The brainstorming aspect to seek solutions can generate proposals and help chart a way forward.
•  It is an efficient way of sharing information. Talks focus on the essentials, compared to written reports which may contain much useful information, but much that is extraneous to the purpose of the meeting.

So the next time that you find yourself scratching your head, or worse — banging it against a wall — reach for the low-tech, low hanging fruit. Advise people to sit down together and work it out verbally. Way before Microsoft capitalized and appropriated the term, the Bible’s famous opening line was: “In the beginning was the Word.”