Communication in groups – Of dialogue myths and meeting terrorism<\/h1>\nHow people can talk to each other – and when they should and how!<\/h2>\n<\/div>When people create something together, they communicate. It is not uncommon for the communication and creation process to appear inefficient<\/strong>. However, as change management has taught us so far, changes or even efficiency improvements are extremely challenging. Sometimes it seems almost impossible.<\/p>\nThe following is not the last word on this subject. But a few important facts about the communication behaviour of and in groups can help you to (inter)act more efficiently in meetings and other work settings.<\/p>\n
Once there is a common understanding of the inefficiency, it seems absolutely necessary to clarify it together,\u00a0like\u00a0<\/em>how we want to communicate and work together. With this question to be answered together, we leave the field of inefficiency and triviality - and set out together to find a common solution. Travelling through the vukaesque thicket<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>to start.<\/p>\nThe following article is intended to clarify which common\u00a0Communication rounds <\/strong>are available and when which one is worthwhile. Communication rounds refers to the various modes in which work is carried out (especially in groups), for what purpose and on what occasion communication takes place.<\/p>\nIt is not uncommon…<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- that meetings are scheduled and discussed even though a decision is pending or<\/strong><\/li>\n
- that speeches are made where dialogue is needed,<\/strong><\/li>\n
- or a dialogue is initiated where a (large group) discussion has long seemed appropriate.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/i><\/i><\/span>Discussion round<\/span><\/a><\/h4><\/div>\nIntroductory<\/strong><\/p>\nEveryone is familiar with debates. In discussions, we learn to make our point of view clear and, if necessary, to assert it. If we don't succeed at the first attempt, the debate and discussion hardens and becomes a deadlock. Glasl's classic conflict escalation model<\/a> The second stage of conflict escalation has already been defined and labelled. Discussions are not particularly popular, as they would take up time, exacerbate disagreements and fuel conflicts. However, this does not mean that we avoid discussions completely. They have long enjoyed a boom in television programmes and are still the method of choice for forming political opinions, for example. There is no need to decide here whether this is wise. At any rate, in the world of humanistic-psychological communication culture, discussions are frowned upon rather than welcomed. At best, discussions are welcomed in the traditional forms of dialectical cognition and are practised in debating clubs. Only someone who has ever been passionately committed to a cause that they deeply oppose can judge the beneficial effect that training in debating has on opinions and positional thinking. It is recommended to everyone at this point.<\/p>\nIntention<\/strong><\/p>\nDiscussing is about convincing.\u00a0<\/strong>By clearly and unambiguously stating one's own point of view, explaining the reasons why it is worthy of support and, if necessary, presenting arguments against other points of view, the aim is to convince dialogue partners or listeners and thus become – supporters“.<\/p>\nGroup discussions in teams and organisations are often used to gain clarity about the existing points of view and to open up the field by presenting opinion leaders and content. The discussion creates a map that coordinates the positions and viewpoints, shows the diagram of possible points of view and allows the group members to localise themselves. In a world where problems and solutions are unclear, these effects should not be underestimated.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, discussions often take place too early and, above all, too long. The presentation of points of view then degenerates into a bombardment of arguments that only creates frightened and irritated people in trenches, but not convinced ones.<\/p>\n
Effects<\/strong><\/p>\nDiscussions have a tendency to heat up the minds involved and increase the speed of speech and topics. Discussions speed up communication, which initially leads to people putting their ears to the ground instead of opening them – and ultimately closing their eyes to each other. Eyes closed and through! With full force. At this point at the latest, the constructive forces of the discussions lose all support and no longer offer any fertile ground.<\/p>\n
Practical tip<\/strong><\/p>\nDiscussions become heated on their own. There is always a need for corrective elements, either meta-discussions between the participants or a structuring and stabilising moderation by a person who is not involved in the discussion. Meta talks and moderation<\/strong> guarantee that the good things in discussions are not lost. This means that discussions can generally be protected and preserved against the ideological terror of dialogue and feel-good mentalities. Teams and groups should not do without a cultivated culture of discussion, but should be allowed to utilise their power to gain knowledge without fear of drowning in conflict and chaos. It's not just lawyers and debating society champions who can benefit from discussions. In a VUCA world, we cannot afford to leave the tried and tested instrument of cultivated discussions for good decision-making unused.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/i><\/i><\/span>Dialogue round<\/span><\/a><\/h4><\/div>\nA dialogue is calmer than a discussion, the participants are largely occupied with listening and understanding. When they say something, it usually ends in a question. Open questions in particular support the dialogue-like nature of a conversation.<\/p>\n
In dialogue, people create an interactive working space in which they can search intensively for solutions by exploring and reflecting together. The aim is to understand each other without, of course, agreeing with everything.<\/p>\n
The Wort ‚Dialog‘<\/i> (Greek from dia = through, logos = word) refers back in its conceptual history to the fact that people experience each other through their words and actions. The aim of dialogue is for everyone to be able to participate in order to communicate their part to the whole.<\/p>\n
This is why the group discussion requires openness and transparency in order to be a dialogue. The pressure to make decisions and win a majority must be eliminated for this period. This is the reason why dialogue always has a decelerating effect. The decision-making processes, e.g. in a team or an organisation, are decelerated in order to recognise all existing and possible points of view.<\/p>\n
Experience<\/strong><\/p>\nDialogue rarely happens on its own in working life. This has to do with the fact that organisations are designed to make decisions. The aim of communication in organisations is always to be able to make decisions. Therefore, communication that is not intended to be decision-making communication, but dialogue\u00a0be consciously initiated<\/strong>. Of course, dialogue and discussion should enable decisions to be made, but these are not yet decision-making rounds. The Dialogue is at the service of decision-making<\/strong> of a team or an organisation. Special framework conditions are therefore required. And these are represented, for example, by an external moderator for all to see.<\/p>\n(However, this does not mean that every moderation initiates dialogue. Discussion and decision moderation are also possible).<\/em><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"data:image\/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%27http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%27%20width%3D%27200%27%20height%3D%27300%27%20viewBox%3D%270%200%20200%20300%27%3E%3Crect%20width%3D%27200%27%20height%3D%27300%27%20fill-opacity%3D%220%22%2F%3E%3C%2Fsvg%3E\")
<\/p>\n
Photo by Charles Deluvio \u00a0<\/a>on Unsplash<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/i><\/i><\/span>Decision round<\/span><\/a><\/h4><\/div>\nWhat are decision rounds about?<\/strong><\/p>\nDecision rounds are the communication rounds at the end of which the decision is made. It is not about generating information (dialogues) or exchanging information or trying to convince (discussions).<\/p>\n
Decision-making rounds require a transparent procedure, at the end of which the decision can be heard by all participants. This can be a democratic majority procedure or the decision of the group leadership, or even a single person who has to make the decision following a discussion, e.g. an advisory committee.<\/p>\n
Experience values:<\/strong><\/p>\nThe decision-making round is rarely carried out separately in organisations, even though this is exemplary in the overall organisation of the state. In parliament, the discussion round can be observed separately from the decision-making round. This is already necessary there due to the sheer size of the participants. In smaller groups and teams, however, it would often make sense to at least separate the discussions. This would allow the Dialogue round (information generation)<\/strong> and Discussion round (exchange of information)<\/strong> more fruitful. In discussions, the participants could concentrate on convincing arguments and not always have to think in terms of majorities. And dialogues would come about in the first place. In this way, a more clearly separated Decision round (information processing)<\/strong> relieve the pressure on dialogues and discussions.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"data:image\/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%27http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%27%20width%3D%27300%27%20height%3D%27200%27%20viewBox%3D%270%200%20300%20200%27%3E%3Crect%20width%3D%27300%27%20height%3D%27200%27%20fill-opacity%3D%220%22%2F%3E%3C%2Fsvg%3E\")
<\/p>\n
Photo by Brendan Church<\/a> on Unsplash<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/i><\/i><\/span>Creativity round<\/span><\/a><\/h4><\/div>\nWhat are creativity rounds about?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\nAs the name suggests, it is about the creation of something new – and in terms of communication, this means that it is about the Creation of new ideas<\/strong>. Not only brainstorming and brainwriting methods are suitable for this, but also a whole lot more. The only important thing is that the participants leave their usual perspectives and streams of thought behind and can really think in new ways.<\/p>\nExperience<\/strong><\/p>\nCreativity rounds are given far too little space! Established and conservative organisations in particular, whose successes date back years and decades but still have an impact, struggle to be creative and innovative. There is still a lot of room for improvement.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"data:image\/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%27http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%27%20width%3D%27300%27%20height%3D%27169%27%20viewBox%3D%270%200%20300%20169%27%3E%3Crect%20width%3D%27300%27%20height%3D%27169%27%20fill-opacity%3D%220%22%2F%3E%3C%2Fsvg%3E\")
<\/p>\n
Photo by „My Life Through A Lens“<\/a> on Unsplash<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>
When people create something together, they communicate. It is not uncommon for the communication and creation process to appear inefficient<\/strong>. However, as change management has taught us so far, changes or even efficiency improvements are extremely challenging. Sometimes it seems almost impossible.<\/p>\n The following is not the last word on this subject. But a few important facts about the communication behaviour of and in groups can help you to (inter)act more efficiently in meetings and other work settings.<\/p>\n Once there is a common understanding of the inefficiency, it seems absolutely necessary to clarify it together,\u00a0like\u00a0<\/em>how we want to communicate and work together. With this question to be answered together, we leave the field of inefficiency and triviality - and set out together to find a common solution. Travelling through the vukaesque thicket<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>to start.<\/p>\n The following article is intended to clarify which common\u00a0Communication rounds <\/strong>are available and when which one is worthwhile. Communication rounds refers to the various modes in which work is carried out (especially in groups), for what purpose and on what occasion communication takes place.<\/p>\n It is not uncommon…<\/strong><\/p>\n Introductory<\/strong><\/p>\n Everyone is familiar with debates. In discussions, we learn to make our point of view clear and, if necessary, to assert it. If we don't succeed at the first attempt, the debate and discussion hardens and becomes a deadlock. Glasl's classic conflict escalation model<\/a> The second stage of conflict escalation has already been defined and labelled. Discussions are not particularly popular, as they would take up time, exacerbate disagreements and fuel conflicts. However, this does not mean that we avoid discussions completely. They have long enjoyed a boom in television programmes and are still the method of choice for forming political opinions, for example. There is no need to decide here whether this is wise. At any rate, in the world of humanistic-psychological communication culture, discussions are frowned upon rather than welcomed. At best, discussions are welcomed in the traditional forms of dialectical cognition and are practised in debating clubs. Only someone who has ever been passionately committed to a cause that they deeply oppose can judge the beneficial effect that training in debating has on opinions and positional thinking. It is recommended to everyone at this point.<\/p>\n Intention<\/strong><\/p>\n Discussing is about convincing.\u00a0<\/strong>By clearly and unambiguously stating one's own point of view, explaining the reasons why it is worthy of support and, if necessary, presenting arguments against other points of view, the aim is to convince dialogue partners or listeners and thus become – supporters“.<\/p>\n Group discussions in teams and organisations are often used to gain clarity about the existing points of view and to open up the field by presenting opinion leaders and content. The discussion creates a map that coordinates the positions and viewpoints, shows the diagram of possible points of view and allows the group members to localise themselves. In a world where problems and solutions are unclear, these effects should not be underestimated.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, discussions often take place too early and, above all, too long. The presentation of points of view then degenerates into a bombardment of arguments that only creates frightened and irritated people in trenches, but not convinced ones.<\/p>\n Effects<\/strong><\/p>\n Discussions have a tendency to heat up the minds involved and increase the speed of speech and topics. Discussions speed up communication, which initially leads to people putting their ears to the ground instead of opening them – and ultimately closing their eyes to each other. Eyes closed and through! With full force. At this point at the latest, the constructive forces of the discussions lose all support and no longer offer any fertile ground.<\/p>\n Practical tip<\/strong><\/p>\n Discussions become heated on their own. There is always a need for corrective elements, either meta-discussions between the participants or a structuring and stabilising moderation by a person who is not involved in the discussion. Meta talks and moderation<\/strong> guarantee that the good things in discussions are not lost. This means that discussions can generally be protected and preserved against the ideological terror of dialogue and feel-good mentalities. Teams and groups should not do without a cultivated culture of discussion, but should be allowed to utilise their power to gain knowledge without fear of drowning in conflict and chaos. It's not just lawyers and debating society champions who can benefit from discussions. In a VUCA world, we cannot afford to leave the tried and tested instrument of cultivated discussions for good decision-making unused.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div> A dialogue is calmer than a discussion, the participants are largely occupied with listening and understanding. When they say something, it usually ends in a question. Open questions in particular support the dialogue-like nature of a conversation.<\/p>\n In dialogue, people create an interactive working space in which they can search intensively for solutions by exploring and reflecting together. The aim is to understand each other without, of course, agreeing with everything.<\/p>\n The Wort ‚Dialog‘<\/i> (Greek from dia = through, logos = word) refers back in its conceptual history to the fact that people experience each other through their words and actions. The aim of dialogue is for everyone to be able to participate in order to communicate their part to the whole.<\/p>\n This is why the group discussion requires openness and transparency in order to be a dialogue. The pressure to make decisions and win a majority must be eliminated for this period. This is the reason why dialogue always has a decelerating effect. The decision-making processes, e.g. in a team or an organisation, are decelerated in order to recognise all existing and possible points of view.<\/p>\n Experience<\/strong><\/p>\n Dialogue rarely happens on its own in working life. This has to do with the fact that organisations are designed to make decisions. The aim of communication in organisations is always to be able to make decisions. Therefore, communication that is not intended to be decision-making communication, but dialogue\u00a0be consciously initiated<\/strong>. Of course, dialogue and discussion should enable decisions to be made, but these are not yet decision-making rounds. The Dialogue is at the service of decision-making<\/strong> of a team or an organisation. Special framework conditions are therefore required. And these are represented, for example, by an external moderator for all to see.<\/p>\n (However, this does not mean that every moderation initiates dialogue. Discussion and decision moderation are also possible).<\/em><\/p>\n Photo by Charles Deluvio \u00a0<\/a>on Unsplash<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div> What are decision rounds about?<\/strong><\/p>\n Decision rounds are the communication rounds at the end of which the decision is made. It is not about generating information (dialogues) or exchanging information or trying to convince (discussions).<\/p>\n Decision-making rounds require a transparent procedure, at the end of which the decision can be heard by all participants. This can be a democratic majority procedure or the decision of the group leadership, or even a single person who has to make the decision following a discussion, e.g. an advisory committee.<\/p>\n Experience values:<\/strong><\/p>\n The decision-making round is rarely carried out separately in organisations, even though this is exemplary in the overall organisation of the state. In parliament, the discussion round can be observed separately from the decision-making round. This is already necessary there due to the sheer size of the participants. In smaller groups and teams, however, it would often make sense to at least separate the discussions. This would allow the Dialogue round (information generation)<\/strong> and Discussion round (exchange of information)<\/strong> more fruitful. In discussions, the participants could concentrate on convincing arguments and not always have to think in terms of majorities. And dialogues would come about in the first place. In this way, a more clearly separated Decision round (information processing)<\/strong> relieve the pressure on dialogues and discussions.<\/p>\n Photo by Brendan Church<\/a> on Unsplash<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div> What are creativity rounds about?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n As the name suggests, it is about the creation of something new – and in terms of communication, this means that it is about the Creation of new ideas<\/strong>. Not only brainstorming and brainwriting methods are suitable for this, but also a whole lot more. The only important thing is that the participants leave their usual perspectives and streams of thought behind and can really think in new ways.<\/p>\n Experience<\/strong><\/p>\n Creativity rounds are given far too little space! Established and conservative organisations in particular, whose successes date back years and decades but still have an impact, struggle to be creative and innovative. There is still a lot of room for improvement.<\/p>\n Photo by „My Life Through A Lens“<\/a> on Unsplash<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n
<\/i><\/i><\/span>Discussion round<\/span><\/a><\/h4><\/div>
<\/i><\/i><\/span>Dialogue round<\/span><\/a><\/h4><\/div>
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/images.der-strategische-dialog.de\/2018\/02\/charles-deluvio-456505-200x300.jpg\")
<\/i><\/i><\/span>Decision round<\/span><\/a><\/h4><\/div>
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/images.der-strategische-dialog.de\/2018\/02\/brendan-church-182747-300x200.jpg\")
<\/i><\/i><\/span>Creativity round<\/span><\/a><\/h4><\/div>
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/images.der-strategische-dialog.de\/2018\/02\/my-life-through-a-lens-110632-300x169.jpg\")