Guiding Principles
5 Principles for Dialogic Decision-making
“Between stimulus and response, there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.” Stephen Covey
These principles are a distillation of some of the lessons learned from processes involving dialogue as a way of managing tension surrounding societal problems. The use of the word dialogic is a deliberate attempt to get away from the idea of dialogue as an event. There is a dialogic way of thinking that underlies the search for new ways of doing politics. It is hard to describe but contains certain key elements. The principles are an attempt to understand the dialogic mindset that informs the dialogic skillset contained in this collection of design elements or patterns.
The space between what we observe and what we decide to do is the primary focus of dialogue. In this space lies the power to choose how we wish to respond to a challenge, a problem or a crisis. Societal problems and challenges are no exception. This is the space in which power is claimed by some or where it is shared.
In our regular day to day decisions, we seldom take the time to reflect on our choices. We seem to be on autopilot and make decisions based on a habitual way of thinking or on our emotions at that moment. The same is true for decisions made in the political sphere. The space where decisions are considered is often shaped by those who have and wish to maintain power. They make the rules. They determine who has the right to speak and who is excluded. In our current political system, this space is shaped in such a way that those who are affected by decisions are seldom included.
If we want to change this system that is characterised by exclusion, we need to consider what it needs to contain in order for it to become more inclusive. Here are some principles that could make this a different space – one where better decisions are made because more voices are heard and taken seriously.
#1 - Interconnectedness
The dialogic way presupposes that people are interconnected and that we live in an interconnected universe. Society is a living system just like the ecosystem in which we live.
Relationships between people and between the groups or networks they organise themselves through are crucial. If these relationships are characterised by openness, trust, respect and clarity, the quality of communication in a system will be good. When there is flow, tension recedes. People may not agree, but there is an open flow of communication between them that reduces tension and the risk of destructive conflict. When the flow ceases, people become suspicious of each other, see each other as opponents and in the end as enemies.
Society is a large adaptive living system. Within it are smaller systems, communities, families, towns and neighbourhoods. We ourselves are complex living systems. Each of these affects other systems in an ongoing dynamic way. Even though these systems are very different, they share certain qualities. A group that undergoes a fundamental shift in its way of thinking, affects the people that comprise that group and at the same time impacts the networks or society within which it is situated. When more and more individuals and groups relate differently to each other and the world, it creates change on the societal level. This may be positive or negative, depending on the shifts that occur.
As Europe is affected by war, people become more afraid and suspicious of those whom they regard as “the enemy”. Individuals become more cautious, as do groups and even countries. People who have opposed violence, suddenly find themselves supporting military intervention.
Similarly, shifts in the way women in society are regarded spread and become the norm. As women are recognised as equals on one level, attitudes at other levels change. This may not happen immediately, but the change occurs notwithstanding.
All this is because society is an interconnected whole. All attempts to exclude, ignore or discriminate against parts of the whole, lead to tension.
#2 - Inclusion
Inclusion is the key to counteracting both marginalisation and fragmentation, the primary reasons why conflicts arise. In dealing with societal problems, the inclusion of different perspectives and the people who hold these perspectives are essential. At the same time, it is essential to include all aspects of the human being, her thoughts, ideas, feelings, values, and identity. If these are not considered, resulting decisions risk marginalising groups or individuals. The fragmentation that we see in society today is a result of the marginalisation that results from poor decisions and inadequate decision-making processes.
Including the whole spectrum of human experience implies opening decision-making processes to include more than simply reason. Many decision-making processes today rely on expert analysis and rational arguments. Ironically, research itself seems to conclude that most decisions are made on a non-rational basis. Rational arguments are simply used to justify decisions that are influenced by emotions, values and deeper ideological or religious convictions.
Including different voices (perspectives, stakeholders) requires that decision-makers listen, and open themselves to being influenced by others. In effect, this means sharing power with others (see principle #3).
#3 - Sharing Power
Without the willingness to share power with other stakeholders, those who hold power cannot legitimately claim that they wish to collaborate with or include stakeholders. People are increasingly seeing through cosmetic attempts at public participation, citizen involvement and participative decision-making. As long as those in power simply consult with those affected by their decisions, mistrust will increase. Unfortunately, the very idea of participation is used to legitimise decisions that are ultimately decided by a select few.
The structures that have been created to ensure that power is the domain of a powerful group are themselves a hurdle to true participation and power-sharing. There are exceptions. In some local and regional governments, individuals have opened themselves to sharing decision-making power. They are often confronted by those who wish to preserve the current system and are forced to give up.
With the sharing of power comes responsibility. Those who insist on having their voice heard and participating in shared decision-making need to take individual responsibility when agreements are reached and take responsibility collectively where decisions resulting in joint action are made. Even here the current systems have produced a culture of projection and avoidance of responsibility. People insist on change and, in the same breath, insist that others assume responsibility for this change. By doing this, they are simply confirming a system built upon the idea that some powerful group bears responsibility. This is a social engineering system premised on “planning for” rather than “planning with”.
#4 - Creating Space
Decisions are made in response to opportunities, demands, new challenges, problems that arise, and crises. Many, if not the majority, of these decisions are made based on emotions. Yet, many of the political decisions, and smaller decisions leading up to them, are believed to be the result of reason and analysis. The popular “evidence-based” decision-making is always held up as “the way we operate”.
Decisions are responses to situations that arise. Between the situation that arises (the impulse) and the response, there is a space. Sometimes this space is infinitesimally small, almost non-existent. This space provides us with the power to choose. How it is shaped and held will determine the quality of the response. Shaping this space is the essence of the dialogic way.
A dialogic way of thinking and acting brings this space into awareness. It opens up the space between stimulus and response and allows us to explore, to broaden and to deepen our understanding of what is at stake. In this space, we determine what this problem is that we are trying to address. In this space, we try to understand the causes and effects of this problem and how structures create and sustain it. We allow ourselves to explore thoughts, ideas, feelings, values and convictions. And when we do so, as we begin to see more, alternatives emerge. These alternatives are the potential that the situation offers us and which we miss when we quickly skip over the space.
In the case of more complex problems, this space provides us with the opportunity to include other perspectives and disavowed parts of ourselves and our communities. This space provides us with an opportunity to hear the stories that people have to tell, stories that empower them to take action. This is a space that those who want to maintain power desperately try to control.
The dialogic way makes space and holds space for others. It also proposes that individuals create and hold space for themselves. Another way of putting this is to say that dialogue is a continuous process of creating safe spaces where people can say what they need to say, that allows each one to take responsibility and for groups to access their collective wisdom.
#5 – Emergence
Every challenge, every problem, and every conflict signifies the need for a system to change. It is the system’s way of saying that transformation is necessary. If these signals are ignored, they will present themselves again, only with more energy and force.
The dialogic way does not suggest simply understanding a problem more fully. Very closely linked to this phase of exportation is the next phase of emergence. In this phase, attention is shifted towards seeking connections and identifying potential. This might even happen as the problem is understood more fully.
This phase of allowing the potential to emerge requires a shift in mindset. It is the shift from asking “what is really going on?” to asking, “what is possible given the restraints?” It is a phase of exploring connections between people and between groups. It is also now that one needs to ask the question: what responsibility can each individual take and what can a group take collective responsibility for?