Dialogue: A Tool for Adaptive Leadership

Today’s societal problems are no longer technical in nature, and cannot be addressed by a singular, linear solution. Rather, they are wicked problems: complex, multi-pronged, systemic, ongoing, and even undefined (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Heifetz (1994) asserted that in order to address such problems, we should think of leadership as an activity rather than as a position, and ensure that the work of solving such challenges belongs to the people at large rather than any one individual.

Dialogue is a tool that adaptive leaders use to do this work: to mobilize others through a shared vision, broaden perceptions, and initiate corresponding action.

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

To understand dialogue’s connection to adaptive leadership, we must first consider the mindset of an adaptive leader and their beliefs on leadership itself. Consider the differences in our behavior if we hold the idea that leadership means influencing others to follow the leader’s vision, for example, versus the view that a leader’s role is to influence others to face societal problems. These lenses prompt distinctions between who holds ownership in societal challenges, and who is empowered.

Feelings of ownership and empowerment are compounded when we consider each group member’s relationship with leadership: Do they consider themselves a leader, or do they not? Those who hold the belief that they were born to be a leader run the risk of wasting others’ time, blindly doing damage due to lack of foresight and perspective, and leading others off a cliff due to said lack of perception. On the flip side, those who believe they are not leaders avoid any societal responsibility by taking no action whatsoever. They fail to show up at all.

By serving as a tool for community engagement, dialogue bridges these extremes. It offers leaders the opportunity to expand their periphery and gain understanding from others, while ensuring all group members the opportunity to contribute insights and spur action. It can be the distinction between leading “with” or leading “beside” rather than from the front. Rather than waving the flag in a charge, a leader is able to step aside as group members step forward, reflecting with pride, “there go my people.”

How, exactly, does dialogue accomplish this task? First and foremost, dialogue serves as a reality test; that is, a practice to grasp a problem fully (Heifetz, 1994, p.38). Dialogue circles allow community members from all walks of life or part of an organization to bring both blind spots and challenges to light.

This, of course, can cause friction. The trick from there is to stay in dialogue despite a rise in conversational temperature. We as humans have a tendency to move from silence straight to debate, and when things get too heated, we shut down and retreat before reaching true conflict resolution (Isaacs, 1999). This conflict avoidance then manifests itself in multitudes of other ways, which Heifetz coins “work avoidance mechanisms.” They include holding on to the past, externalizing an enemy, scapegoating, blaming authority, denying the problem, jumping to conclusions, or fixating on distracting issues (Heifetz, 1994, p. 37).

The goal, therefore, is to maintain group stress at a sustainable level so that we can maintain focus on challenges without defaulting to debate or avoidance, and thus gain understanding needed to face long-term and short-term problems. Furthermore, our ability to serve as adaptive leaders and change agents requires different group factions to interact with each other and share differing challenges, realities, and values. Without this, only a fraction of a social system is analyzed.

Dialogue supports this work due to its emphasis on understanding, shared humanity, suspended judgment, and awareness. It gives groups the opportunity to test the relationships between multiple means and ends, to sharpen and redefine community values, assess group cultures, and make adjustments.

For these reasons, dialogue is advantageous to adaptive work and adaptive leadership. It enables groups to address conflicts between the values that people hold and the realities they face. Through dialogue, groups clarify what matters and balance the tradeoffs of consequential actions. It is a key pillar of adaptive leadership.

References

Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Belknap Press.

Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life. Currency.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.