The goal of dialogue is not to convince, but to listen, understand and reach a collaborative ... [+]
Sira Abenoza is a professor in the Department of Society, Politics and Sustainability at Esade.
The year 2024 marks the 40th anniversary of the publication of a key book in management theory, a book that paved the way for a new paradigm or, at least, lent it structure and strength: Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, by Edward Freeman.
The Stakeholder theory proposed a radical change in how we understand companies. Whereas previously the shareholder had been regarded as the all-mighty figure who should determine how a company should be run, under the new theory, the center of gravity was distributed across all groups that might be affected by its activity: the stakeholders.
Freeman’s vision -later embraced by hundreds of other scholars- held that it was not only possible, but also necessary to listen to all people affected by the company’s business, to let them voice their needs and proposals regarding the company’s future.
But are we prepared for this change? Or, more accurately, are we prepared to implement it properly? The stakeholder model tells us that everyone has a say: employees, customers, suppliers, etc. Has anyone taught us how to do it? How does one talk to a company? And, just as importantly, how can company managers listen to stakeholders?
The power of “Socratic dialogue”
Knowing how to listen and how to speak requires skills that are not obvious and are not usually taught, processes that are neither common nor comfortable for the managers who are listening or the stakeholders being listened to. More than ten years of experience teaching Socratic dialogue as a management tool offers a few lessons to better guide this process.
First, dialogue over debate. Society in general – and the business world in particular – tends to debate, not engage in dialogue. Debate is a means of communication that turns speaking into a sparring match, where the goal is to win. The logic of debate encourages competition; it is a zero-sum game. In contrast, in a dialogue, the parties open up to each other, in order to share their worlds and expand their personalities. We share experiences by seeking common meanings and doing something whereby everyone wins: understanding.
Second, listening to understand, not to convince. Crucially, the goal of dialogue is not to try to convince the other. Unlike debate, where the aim is to prove that one is right, with dialogue, the goal is to listen to what others have to contribute in order to understand it and interweave it with one’s own ideas, to build something new. The result is not the fruit of one party or the other, but of both; it is a collaborative outcome. The starting point is the understanding that neither party is entirely right, but rather each one is partially so.
Third, the main enemy of dialogue is fear. If we remain mired in the logic of competition, we will have trouble speaking up and showing our weaknesses. Exposing our vulnerability makes us uncomfortable, lest we be judged or hurt. Companies must thus help create safe spaces conducive to reflection that allow us to suspend judgement, spark curiosity, remember that the other person also knows things, and listen to what they have to say. It is not a natural process: on the contrary, it requires patience, flexibility, humility, and sincerity, shaking off our laziness and mustering the courage to let go of our ideas, play as a team, and help others.
Fourth, and closely related to the previous points, dialogue requires a change in management style. The manager of a company that believes in Freeman’s model must abandon the ideal of managing with an iron fist and absolute certainties in order to become someone who knows how to ask questions and genuinely listen. Stakeholder managers stop seeing their subordinates as mere executors of their orders and begin to see them as Socrates saw his fellow citizens, i.e., as people with valuable knowledge to contribute to any discussion, as bearers of partial visions of the truth that can contribute to a better understanding of what is best for us as a company.
The benefits of dialogue
Implementing Socratic dialogue in management is not without its challenges. It demands patience, flexibility, and a willingness to embrace uncertainty. However, the benefits are substantial. Companies that foster a culture of dialogue are better positioned to innovate, retain talent, and solve complex problems. Moreover, a leadership style that values questioning and listening can prevent the communication breakdowns that often lead to organizational crises.
By integrating Socratic dialogue into their management practices, companies can ensure that all stakeholders have a voice in shaping the future. This inclusive approach not only aligns with Freeman's stakeholder theory but also promotes a more ethical, innovative, and resilient organizational culture.
