Test Your Feel For...

The Dialectic Approach

Works best when:

There are groups with members who identify strongly with each other and the group.

Drive for action:

Desire for factional gain without excessive loss to members of the faction or the organization as a whole.

The issue inherently leads to one or other party (faction) obtaining advantage over another. e.g. altering the distribution of benefits.

The issue is complex, poorly structured and so poorly understood that experts disagree about its nature. (This lack of clarity provides the opportunity for claims and counter-claims that would otherwise be dealt with by the facts.)

Involvement of others:

Everyone finds themselves to be a member of a group with its own interests that actually or potentially are in opposition to members of other groups.

Unique strengths:

Allows articulation of group feelings, while minimizing risk for specific individuals.

Enables consensus to emerge from productive conflict, awareness of opposing values, and payoffs all around.

Intrinsic dangers:

● Generation of unnecessary conflict that diverts energies.
● Vacillation between the two sides.
● Payoffs become excessive and debilitating to the organization.
● Decision-making gets excessively delayed by the process.
● Loss of concern with specifics and practical consequences of delay.

Less appropriate if:

The issue is simple and well-structured, and a strong underlying consensus on action actually exists.

Typical Work Roles

The representative emerges from a group with which he is highly identified, being typically elected on the basis of his oratory and adroit use of facts. He sees himself as a debater, and skilfully uses facts and statistics to promote his own group and to discredit proposals and facts provided by competitor groups. To do this he needs to be able to sense the mood of his own group and persuade them to mandate him appropriately. As eventual resolution is desirable, an appreciation of the situation and skills in negotiating and compromising with representatives of other factions are required.

There are other recognizable roles: arbitrators need to be able to recognize the interests or both parties and not be unduly swayed by either set of offered facts. An arbitrator must elucidate the underlying concerns and assumptions of the protagonists and assist in developing a resolution to end the dispute or conflict. If the arbitrator is internal to the system, usually a line-manager in an organization, then he is inevitably also a protagonist.

Misuse

The dialectic process takes time, especially when it aggravates differences between groups that are best left implicit. As differences are inflamed, the dialectic approach becomes ingrained. It then contributes to the situation for which it is offering itself as the remedy. Superficial perceptions or incorrect assumptions come to the fore. Any and every decision becomes subject to debate, even when there is unspoken consensus on the choice (e.g. because the issue is simple). However, not to have such a debate is perceived as taking for granted and devaluing one side or the other.

Return to the Summary Table.

Originally posted: 3-Apr-2011.