The Do’s and Don’ts of Dialogue
“So what is it that you actually do?”
Said the impressive young lawyer, working in The Hague.
We were attending an international forum during which various panels had been facilitated, mostly very competently, by people whose main profession was something else. I, as a guest moderator, had clearly confused my young acquaintance by not having a ‘real job’.
In some ways, he makes a fair point. It is not intrinsically difficult to read out an abridged biography of some speakers and then give them the floor. Neither is it excessively demanding to select some ‘key themes’ at the end and thank everyone for coming.
Of course, at Wilton Park, the Programme Director role is much broader than facilitating discussion, involving years of acquiring knowledge, building networks, and developing skills. Each event we run requires months of intensive research, careful prioritisation of objectives, inventive programme design, and coordination with a multidisciplinary events team.
Still, there is a deeper question about the point of staging human-to-human dialogue in the first place, especially in the age of AI. After all, if you have eminent academics, activists and officials all attending international panels and roundtables, they are necessarily taking time away from other things; they could be researching, drafting policy, or delivering programmes – in other words, real work. In addition, the costs of hiring and heating conference spaces, sourcing accommodation, and providing adequate sustenance, along with the carbon footprint of everyone’s travel, add up to a chunk of resource that could be spent on other things. Dialogue comes with a significant opportunity cost.
The good thing is that there is plenty of evidence as to why dialogue, done well, can be a both essential and enjoyable use of everyone’s time. Whether it’s the tradition of Socratic dialogue from Plato’s dialogues, the process of ‘moral cultivation’ described in Confucius’ Analects, the ‘I–Thou encounter’ defined by Martin Buber, or the ‘legitimate collective reasoning’ of Jürgen Habermas, there is an expansive discipline of human discovery and progress associated with dialogue. Wilton Park’s own Monitoring & Evaluation team document multiple examples of initiatives and networks generated through our gatherings every year.
However, to make best use of the time and resource that dialogue entails, I’ve come up with my personal Do’s and Don’ts of Dialogue. These are based on my personal experience and apply to those participating, as well as those doing the facilitation.
First of all, lessons for dialogue participants:
DO’s
DO prepare. Usually this won’t be about your level of knowledge – you’ve been invited because you’re already an expert. However, you should make yourself thoroughly aware of the objectives of the event or session in question. If you can’t see any, don’t go.
DO speak from the heart. The point about gathering humans rather than bots is that they can bring to bear perspectives and motivations that are surprising, emotionally moving, and galvanising to one other. Even in this data age, change tends to occur when enough human beings feel strongly enough about something to make it happen.
DO tell the truth. Sincerity and candour are fundamental to dialogue. If you plan to travel to an international conference only to say what you’ve been told is allowed, or what you think people want to hear, then perhaps consider staying at home.
DO listen as much as you talk. Anyone engaged in a sensible dialogue should be open to the fact that they might learn something and potentially end up seeing things in a different way. That starts by listening to others, especially those from different backgrounds and schools of thought.
DON’TS
DON’T speak for the sake of speaking. This can be surprisingly hard to do! The trick is not to fear the silence. If you’ve said what you have to say, then save the space for others. I became a die-hard fan of British Sinologist Professor Kerry Brown the day I heard him say, “No thanks, I’ve nothing further to add. I think I’ve shot my bolt for the day”.
DON’T just say what people expect you to say. Again – this can be difficult. If you primarily see yourself as playing the role of diplomat, law enforcement official, or human rights defender, rather than being a human being, then before long it will feel like you are reading from a script. That is fine for some spaces (particularly formal diplomatic ones), but it’s not really dialogue.
DON’T apologise. If you apologise before you speak then you’re giving everyone permission to write you off. If you apologise after you speak, it’s usually because you have repeated yourself, and should have stopped earlier (see above).
DON’T drag the conversation off-track. Of course, making surprising connections is part of the point of talking about things. However, if you don’t think you have anything to add to a particular debate, don’t take the easy route and change the subject to your favourite topic; this doesn’t move things forward, only sideways.
Now, for facilitators / convenors / moderators – here are my three Golden Rules:
1. It is not about you.
This is the cardinal rule. Even though you may be extremely knowledgeable, people usually did not come to see you – they came to hear from the people you are introducing. If in doubt – get out of the way and let the real experts talk.
2. Manage the time.
This is not just about making sure you don’t overrun for lunch (though this is important!). It’s about being clear about how long people are speaking for and not being afraid to intervene when they overrun. Similarly, if you are bringing the wider group into your conversation, then keep questions and interjections short, coherent, and related to the core topic. Be strict if you have to; you may upset one or two, but everyone else will thank you.
3. Begin with the end in mind.
Start every session with a clear idea of the questions you are addressing, even if you don’t know the answers to them yet (if you already know the answers, then they’re bad questions). This means ensuring that you have sufficient subject matter knowledge to be credible, regardless of the topic. It also means being alive to the idea that the answer my take an unexpected form or come from an unlikely source.
To get to those answers, you have to both lead and follow the conversation at the same time. Lead too much, and you will just end up with your own answer; follow too much and you may end up miles from the main issue.
This is complex task, and it requires extensive preparation and practice; it’s more art than science.
Sounds like a real job to me. But more importantly -what do you think?