Are we as a society prone to Debate rather than Discussion. Are our actions therefore sub-optimal?

Reservations in Higher Education, Bandh over the Petrol Price Hike, Ban of the film The Da Vinci Code in some Indian States. While the newspapers and the airwaves were full of these controversies, one could hardly see issues being discussed, fundamentals being examined, facts being unearthed. A typical coverage of these issues would be on ‘who said what' and ‘who is for and who is against'. There is very little space for those who want to find a new way out. Sam Patroda for one, was trying to put things in perspective on the reservation issue, but soon silence ensued. The same will happen with the other two issues, the loudest voice will prevail. Loudest, not necessarily the best. Most of our arguments in public life are polarized just as it is in a debate. Though I would say even a proper debate on issues does not happen. I see parallels of this "either you are with me or not" happen even in social and office situations. There is no doubt that we do not make the best choices as a society and my argument is that if culturally we make decisions in this fashion; we must be making wrong choices in teams and organizations as well. Here is where I found Edward De Bono's work on Thinking Skills, and the human mind very illustrative. A lot of what I am about to say has its roots in his work.

One important concept is Parallel Thinking rather than Argumentative Thinking. In a typical debate the two sides argue out their cases. What happens in this situation is facts known to one but not favourable to him get buried, and there is a loser and a winner. When this happens the stake of one's own solution not being accepted is very high. So in an office situation it could be the Boss losing face if his idea is not accepted. If a situation gets that flavour, you very well know which idea will be selected. In the reservation issue Arjun Sigh has made it clear where he stands. So can there be any discussion on a better way? Difficult, the stakes have been raised too high and therefore the debate will be violent. In a way the silence of Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi at least leaves the door open for some discussion.

Now let's look at what Parallel Thinking does. In Parallel thinking one makes the Map first and the best route is taken. So the stake holders first discuss their concerns and goals. In the reservation issue some of these would be the OBCs not getting enough seats, merit being undermined, education being too expensive and unaccessible, quality infrastructure and faculty not being in place, restrictions in the way of the higher education, higher education being heavily regulated and not growing as an industry, uplifting the quality of education from ground up, the need for jobs, rewarding and recognizing talent, need to cater to the vote bank etc. The above are just concerns, not paths and notice that they have been placed randomly. They are colours in the map, more the colours more useful the map. Next comes gathering of facts, each of the concerns above, might be an opinion, probably true or a proven fact. One could easily make bad decisions if an opinion is taken as fact. So fact finding becomes important, data, surveys and tests, trials to determine which of the concerns are valid and how much weightage is to be given to them is essential. In the debate on reservation for instance hardly any data is available, though so many peoples lives are at stake.

Once the concerns, goals, feelings, emotions and facts of all the stake holders are made available in open, and given some kind of weightage, only then one goes about looking at various possible solutions. Various options, alternatives, and even ridiculous ideas are discussed. One important aspect of Parallel Thinking is for everyone (all stake holders) to think in the same direction irrespective of whose idea or concern is being addressed. So if one is discussing the Pros of an idea everyone needs to talk and think the Pros, once that is done everyone talks and thinks Cons, then together the situation is analysed.

One powerful result of this technique is that the ego of the individuals involved is taken out of the equation. Though people started out with individual ideas, concerns and solutions the end result becomes a collective one and has greater acceptance. One goes beyond knee jerk reactions to arrive at the most optimal solution.

The human mind does not think like this instinctively though is clever enough to do so if the techniques are followed. For instance if a car is coming toward you, you do not have the time to list down concerns, analyze the facts and arrive at the best solution; you just get off the way. instinctively. The mind thinks fast and finds a solution; we often assume it is the right one. In day to day familiar activities this is fine; when it comes to important issues we'd better start doing more with our collective minds. 

The author is Chief Catalyst of Businessgyan. He is an alumni of IIT-M, IIM-B. His areas of interest include entrepreneur-ship & innovation. E mail : This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
 

Issue BG63 June06

Related Items:

---

Be first to comment this article

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.