Argument or Discussion: The Purpose
Sometimes we may miss the point, the objective, of heated communication
Disagreement is a difficult place for people to exist in their minds, especially when it’s felt intensely. People choose to react or later respond in combative, unhelpful ways.
"The aim of argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress,” communicated Joseph Joubert, a French moralist and essayist.
Some people choose not to pursue progress when that would move them in the desired direction. Rigid, all-or-nothing thinking doesn’t serve the goal. There is a smarter response within the frustration or anger of disputes and lasting conflicts.
“Before we get into (the discussion) too deeply,” says Richard Birke, chief architect of JAMS Pathways, and a profession at helping resolve complex, multi-party disputes, “we need to acknowledge the distinction between the terms argument and discussion.
“Argument is explicitly about trying to persuade someone to adopt your point of view. Discussion is about the exchange of ideas. It’s less zero sum (one winner, one loser).
Certain topics and strong ideas are more likely to attract resistance so expect it.
“Joubert’s quote highlights a fundamental principle in communication,” proposes Jeremy Ross, a publicist at Prestige Public Relations and Marketing. “If you have anything worthwhile to share, it's likely someone will disagree with you.”
That means conversation should include the acceptance of difficulty as normal and the expected need for persuasion. “Without a persuasive argument,” Ross points out, “we're going to waste our time and possibly create an enemy.”
This is not the understanding and approach that most people grasp or choose.
“I agree with Joubert, but sadly see many professionals in the business world treat argument and sometimes discussion as a contest as opposed to a conversation,” says Joe Jotkowitz, a communication consultant, executive coach, facilitator and trainer at The Executive Advisory.
The problem with that behavior is predictable, yet not seriously considered to the point where it is avoided.
“The instant it feels like a competition,” Jotkowitz says. “You have at least one person focusing on winning as opposed to understanding.
“Constructive debate is essential, especially in the workplace. Disagreement is inherent in all interpersonal relationships. When it comes to relationships, whether they are personal or professional, it is rarely a situation of right and wrong or black and white.
“There are various business arguments to be made. And, if the solution we agree on doesn't work, then we go back to the drawing board. It's not about right and wrong; it's about what's most productive or effective.”
An obsessive focus on victory, while often lauded culturally and yes, necessary at times, can predominantly prove counterproductive.
“The objective in most discussions should be to listen for understanding and to plant seeds so that others can understand you,” Birke advises. “Persuasion comes later, if at all.”
He explains his reasoning for this counsel.
“If you don’t lay the foundation for understanding — reduce barriers, induce reciprocity — it’s hard to be understood,” Birke says.
Not being understand is rarely going to result in progress or victory and if it does, it leaves the residue of resentment and contempt. That’s not helpful.
“In some limited circumstances where an expedient binary decision is required and people disagree — for example, whether to take the highway or the local streets to get to your restaurant or movie, short arguments that are civil in nature may be more effective than a full discussion,” Birke says.
Yet that’s the exception, a point that people usually don’t find necessary to debate.
“However, In most situations, the argument is part of a series of interactions or a relationship of some kind. It’s repeat play,” Birke says. “Think office mates, suppliers or consumers, customers — people who you might see every day. Cramming an opinion down someone else’s throat results in a deterioration of the relationship, perhaps temporary, perhaps more long lasting.”
The clear conclusion: “So ‘victory’ in an argument comes with a cost,” Birke warns. “And winning every argument is a hard strategy to sustain. Risky too.”
When communication calls for smarter reasoning, it requires a prerequisite.
“Basic persuasion starts with building rapport,” Ross insists. “We want to help people to realize that we have things in common and we feel the same way about a lot of things. This involves empathetic listening and creating bridges of shared interest where possible.
“From there, we might earn an opportunity to gain our listener's unbiased ear for a few precious minutes, because a person that feels heard, they will let you be heard.
“Even if he or she doesn't totally agree with your argument, your opinion may at least be allowed to exist in their mind.”
This is a valuable gift, he teaches.
“In a world that has become increasingly unreasonable, having your opinion heard is a great step in the right direction towards understanding,” he suggests.
That accomplishment is beneficial to communicating more successfully and making progress, which is also a form of “victory.”
“Why is learning to understand each other superior to winning arguments?” Birke rhetorically asks. “Because it’s necessary to function in society and it’s a good recipe to thrive.
“Most interactions, conversations included, are characterized by cooperation, by good people playing by the rules. We learn from others about others through dialogue.
“There are times where a choice needs to be made and argument is an appropriate modality but for the most part, cooperation allows us and others to get where we want to go while minimizing friction,” Birke declares.
A developed, refined skill skit for communication and earning a reputation for it leads to more breakthroughs in difficult interactions.
“Generally speaking, people who achieve more of their goals and who build a reputation for trustworthiness and efficiency and good manners, are well liked by their peers and supervisors, get promoted and get contracts and repeat business, Birke says.
“While they may not make headlines, they constitute the vast majority of people,” he adds. “So how do you do embody these qualities? A few basic tips: Listen more than you talk. Ask sincere open ended questions. Replace judgment with curiosity. If you turn arguments into discussions or conversations, you just might find people reciprocate that kindness.”
It never hurts either, proposes Jotkowitz, to remember something uncomfortable.
“Always begin disagreements with the acknowledgement that you could be wrong,” he says. “If you enter a discussion thinking you are right, then you are no longer a participant; you are a spectator.”
Thank you for reading this issue.
To become a subscriber of Communication Intelligence, the Newsletter, you can type in your preferred email address below:
Advertising: Contact me at comm.intel.newsletter@gmail.com and communicate your value offering for $400 for an attractive color ad in one issue, $600 for an ad in two issues (I can put two in one post) or $2,000 for a color ad placement in every new article for one month (usually six-to-eight issues).
