"He Said, She Said" Strikes Gold

Is your workplace having a conversation about gender communication, or dialogue? Offering communication courses with a specific component directed at gendered language?

The common answers:

(a)  "No."

(b)  "That's funny! You're kidding, right?"

(c)  "Why would we?"

(d)  "Say more…what would that look like?"

Many companies (and the people in them) are in denial of the differences, and hence lose a significant opportunity to attract and retain the most talented people. With the best workplace talent showing up in both genders now, and with gendered conflicts around the globe showing no signs of abating, responses (a) and (b) are at best less than politically correct - a signal that something is going on. And a few answer either (d) or (e), "Yes." I meet those companies, because I work for them. The number of people and organizations that are aware of differences in gender communication is probably close to a majority in the developed economies now. Consciousness around the implications of those differences and what, if anything, to do about it, is growing more slowly.

The balancing factor - where men increase their power in relationships and on the home front - is far less developed. More men are participating in men's groups, and organizing to make change to participate more equitably with their children, but these changes are happening slowly. We see women's groups, cultural groups, and sexual orientation groups - all kinds of groups in the workplace - except men's groups. Where are the men?

So far, as I've said before in this column, the word `gender' has been a code word for "women's issues" in the workplace. Getting to the heart of changes for both men and women in the global economy means more than looking at "he said, she said." It helps to understand those differences, and the underlying changes in power structure need to be addressed as well. To get there, we need real dialogue.

A genuine dialogue requires both willingness and an ability to hear, to stand in the shoes of another perspective and hear it without judgment or blame. If you can paraphrase or in some way reflect back to the other person what you have heard, and she clearly says `yes, that is what I meant', then you are in what I am calling genuine dialogue. Then you can move into judgment and blame. Just kidding…then you can say what is so for you, and have a better chance to be heard and understood.

William Isaacs, in his book Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together identifies key features of dialogue, and the fundamentals of making one work. I carry these two lists with me, and share them here in the hope you find them handy as well:

Must be developed within ourselves, and modelled for others before applied to the teams we lead

Fundamentals of Dialogue:

1. Show up fully, open and receptive

2. Listen deeply to one another for what has heart and meaning to others

3. Be curious and seek to understand other perspectives

4. Say what is so for you without blame or judgment

5. Let go of attachment to our own agenda and desired outcomes

6. Stay open to all possibilities

7. Nobody gets to be wrong

On the last point, we are making the distinction between challenging the person and challenging what you might see as mistaken ideas _ with the basis for respect staying firmly in the latter. I still need a lot of work on #5 especially, as you can see if you read the second half of the "Is Marriage Obsolete?" dialogue with David in this issue.

The Bottom Line

A real dialogue, a conversation and communication between two people that is heard and felt and understood, is increasingly valuable in today's global economy. We are just beginning to experience the profound changes to come as cultures and languages collide and blend around the globe. I laughed at a great cartoon the other day, showing two dogs talking. One said to the other: "On the internet, no one knows you're a dog." In an era of international and electronic business communication, the ability to dialogue is golden. Happy prospecting!