Dialectical thinkers: the people we need but don’t always want

They don’t necessarily believe that both sides are equally right, or that the answer is always to compromise. Rather, they’re comfortable sitting with competing ideas long enough to understand them, challenge their own assumptions and consider whether there is a solution beyond the obvious either/or choice.

These people are not stuck in fixed thinking or total clarity of solutions but are comfortable operating in the ‘grey’ zones. Quite simply, they have learnt or are naturally able to feel comfortable in discomfort or uncertainty.

Traits of a dialectical thinker

Dialectical thinkers avoid oversimplification of ideas. They see events and choices as endlessly evolving and therefore not static or permanent. They also often seek the middle ground in order to retain both options that may be on the table. They can be comfortable with the discomfort that arises when their views or decisions are challenged, knowing that in every challenge there is the learning potential.

They are generally keen to understand the context in order to assess the ideas or issues by understanding their relationship to other issues, or, for example, how it has evolved. They can accept a situation, while simultaneously working to change that situation.

And this is where they can bring real value to an organisation. Not because they’re always right. Not because they’re easier to work with. But because they can see possibilities that aren’t immediately obvious when everyone is looking at an issue from the same or their own angle.

A few workplace examples

Where dialectical thinking can bring value and support problem solving/team relationships:

The engineering team wants to delay the launch as there are some minor bugs to be fixed, but the sales team insists the planned launch must go ahead on schedule. The dialectical thinker might suggest a modified or restricted launch with clear timescales for the full launch to find a viable middle ground. A more fixed approach might be to choose one position and then defend it.

An employee insists that they have a right to privacy when working from home and refuses to turn their camera on during meetings. Their manager insists that relationships can be built more easily and some problems resolved more easily when everyone attending meetings has their camera on. The dialectical thinker can see both sides of this situation but will seek to understand the full context and information before suggesting the way forward. Rather than immediately deciding that cameras must be on, or that the employee’s request must automatically be accepted, they might ask what is actually driving the concern on each side and whether there are other ways of achieving what both parties need.

The factory has purchased two self-driving trucks, but the H&S manager insists that these are dangerous so should not be used. The dialectical thinker will listen carefully to all arguments for and against and may perhaps suggest a trial of one of the trucks or a discussion of how to minimise any dangers identified. Again, this doesn’t mean ignoring the safety concern or automatically splitting the difference. It means being prepared to explore the evidence before deciding what the answer should be.

A weakness or a strength?

We often associate confidence with certainty. The person who confidently says “this is the answer” can appear strong, decisive and knowledgeable.

In contrast, it’s not uncommon for people to accuse those who appear to change their minds, adapt their decisions, change their allegiances, seek compromise, or admit their errors of being indecisive or weak.
Are they weak? Perhaps it depends on what you define as weakness.

We hear speakers such as Brené Brown talking about the power of vulnerability, which of course includes the ability to drop your ego, admit your errors, change your mind etc. Perhaps those who change their minds or seek compromise are showing strength rather than weakness?

It also takes courage to say something that others might disagree with when we know we are not backed by a team standing behind us. It takes courage to step out of certainty and comfort, to call out the elephant in the room. Not everyone values that, though!

Value those who think differently

I’ve read numerous articles recently about the fact that organisations do not, in fact, like people who think outside the box, who can balance opposing views and suggest different ways of behaving. They are all too often seen as disruptive and uncontrollable. This sits in direct contrast to all those organisations who talk to me about how they would love more critical thinking in their organisation and want employees to question more, suggest more, contribute more. But we can’t have it both ways, can we?

If we want critical thinkers, dialectical thinkers, then we have to be mature enough to understand how to value that and work with what they bring to the table. If we like the thought of critical thinking, but know in our heart of hearts that we don’t like people asking difficult questions or challenging or overall we prefer stability and certainty instead of change, which can bring instability for a period, then perhaps we need to be a bit more honest both with ourselves and those we employ. At the moment I think there are too many mixed messages.

Which side of the fence are you on?

Maybe the question isn’t which side of the fence you’re on… it’s whether your organisation makes enough room for people who are willing to sit on the fence for a while, look at what’s happening from both sides, and ask whether there might be another way.