“Dialogue without difference is pointless.”
I wrote that down fast when the chair of a Strategic Health Authority in the UK said it to me the other day. What’s the point in talking things through with people who agree with you? So why do we spend our time doing it? And why do we get so worried when people do have different views? And why do we do we believe that homogenous teams are the most successful?
4 responses so far ↓
1 Hasan Afzal // Aug 10, 2009 at 19:14
What’s worse is dialogue without action. Even more pointless then agreeing with people you already agree with!
2 Rob Watt // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:21
Talking to people who agree with you massages ego and nothing new happens; change does not manifest. Difference is exciting and should be indulged in…
3 Wesley Hayden // Sep 10, 2009 at 04:51
…..because history has shown it to be that way.
4 Jon Grellier // Sep 20, 2009 at 17:40
Is this a pointless dialogue? To a point, we all seem to agree
I would question that we believe that homogenous teams are the most successful. There is evidence all around us that people value difference in teams. Even the most clueless football manager knows his centre half and winger need to be very different creatures for his team to be a success. I’d also question whether dialogue without action is always pointless. It implies an expectation of ‘doing’ every time you enter a dialogue with someone. Sometimes people just want to be listened to.
Leave a Comment