(Version française disponible ici.)
At a recent discussion on gender equity, people explored women’s experiences in the workplace: The opportunities for growth, exclusion from social and professional events, discrimination and harassment, and rates of promotion were among the topics.
The conversation took place in front of an audience that was invited to participate by asking questions.
After the panel wrapped up, a man sheepishly pulled the facilitator aside.
“I wanted to put up my hand and ask a question,” the man said. “But I didn’t want to get it wrong.”
Then another person approached, nodding empathetically. “There was no chance I was going to speak – and then get ‘canceled’ for asking an honest question.”
They are not alone.
In many settings, people are scared to engage in discussion by expressing themselves honestly. As these examples illustrate, it isn’t because they are indifferent or opposed. It’s because they are afraid of the perceived consequences of being sincere. What it amounts to is a failure to foster robust, thoughtful disagreement. In other words, suppression.
Silence is easier than ridicule
In today’s polarized world, leaders are grappling with an increasingly frequent source of frustration: watching serious ideas get reduced to tropes.
It happens when thoughtful people feel misunderstood or silenced after watching others around them have their genuine questions openly ridiculed or criticized.
This isn’t to say there aren’t complex issues layered into many such situations.
At the gathering, one devout Christian, resolutely supportive of Indigenous justice, wondered whether a religious person could open a meeting by grounding themselves in prayer in the same way an Indigenous elder might; not to replace but to build. But the Christian didn’t ask out loud, fearing the nuance would be lost and he might cause pain, especially given the church’s history with residential schools.
At the height of the #MeToo movement, portraits of historical faculty leaders were removed on the grounds they were all men. Yet, “erasing” them did not elevate the tremendous contributions of women in the faculty.
In fact, it diminished leaders who had overcome major challenges, including one who grew up dirt poor on a farm, and another who had been sent as a child to a Japanese internment camp.
Removing their portraits created confusion for men and women alike who felt they could not ask the most basic of questions: What was the goal?
This kind of negative culture hinders problem-solving and corrodes or even prevents relationships that make the resolution of issues possible.
The ultimate root problem therein is a failure to communicate with one another.
Facilitated dialogue
Too often, governance systems are reactive and brittle. As a result, they fail to reward effort to genuinely understand diverse perspectives or offer adequate time and other resources for meaningful consultation in the decision-making process.
As a result, leaders often make decisions without having had the opportunity to fully grasp the issues or the diverse realities of the people affected by those decisions.
What is needed is a structure that makes space for meaningful dialogue (not just forced agreement), invests in co-creation and fosters trust in the process – even if the outcome does not go in the direction some would have wanted.
This kind of approach is especially important when the stakes are high and the issues are complex: in these situations, omission of perspectives can lead to catastrophe.
The solution is facilitated dialogue.
Dialogue helps humanize one another and bringing texture and nuance to polarizing issues. It creates a release valve for the pressure that builds in high-stakes, time-starved decision-making environments.
Regularly facilitated forums – what we call “third spaces” (which are neither your turf nor my turf) create an environment for people to express views, ask sincere questions and explore differences without fear of being shamed or shouted down.
Help needed: skilled facilitators
Skilled facilitation isn’t about everyone agreeing. It isn’t about pretending conflict doesn’t exist.
Done well, a skilled facilitator integrates diverse insights and surfaces shared direction. This ensures that all voices are heard, respected and contribute toward outcomes.
It turns disagreement into dialogue, and dialogue into durable decisions.
Healthy conflict is like an elastic band: too much slack and it accomplishes nothing; too tight and it snaps. The facilitator’s job is to maintain a productive level of tension.
Rather than being some kind of authority that wields the “final word,” facilitators are brokers of understanding. They map the landscape, identify who needs to be involved and guide dialogue.
Participants listen more than they talk.
Governance 2.0: Having healthier conflict to make better decisions
Empowering civil society and Indigenous communities in decision making
Honouring Indigenous self-determination by applying parallel paths
In some models of dialogue, participants can identify trusted sources of data or if none exists, co-develop shared data that everyone can trust. Outcomes are shaped in steps through cycles of reflection, refinement and joint decision-making. This not only leads to better outcomes, but it fosters trust.
And trust is the bedrock of resilient institutions.
Third spaces for hard conversations
Typically, formal meetings are formatted to prioritize efficiency over understanding. There is pressure to quickly conclude with an actionable decision to the detriment of a wide range of views being presented and considered.
Third spaces are impartial, facilitated forums where people are called upon to engage across differences. They are especially vital when the issues are heated, the misunderstandings deep or the risk of harm high.
Third spaces move conversations from a place where friction is avoided to one where difference is invited to take centre stage in a spirit of openness, respect and goodwill.
Building bridges before you need them
Currently higher education governance systems in Canada lack the spaces, skills and structures needed to foster such trust—to their own detriment. Building the capacity to steer tension, navigate complexity and co-create solutions must be deliberate.
By embedding facilitated dialogue and skilled facilitators in our institutions, we may do far more than simply manage disagreement or respond to crises. We open the door to build durable relationships, guard against polarization and transform suspicion into curiosity. This will, importantly, enable stronger decisions to emerge, often new and creative ideas to become possible.
This article is part of a series on inclusive governance. Read more here.
