Leadership: On dialogue, influence and changing minds

Six principles for progress on difficult, divisive issues

In moderating a debate at the recent Ontario Economic Summit, Canadian journalist Steve Paikin began with a question for the audience: Are you open to changing your mind?

As the poll results were tabulated on the screen, a surprising 96 percent responded that they were open to persuasion. It was, however, a debate on competition policy, not a topic (for most people) that stirs complex emotions or touches their values. Had the debate been about private health care, carbon pricing, assisted dying or critical race theory, the audience – answering honestly – would surely have been less persuadable.

On many issues, it’s as if a steel door slams shut in our minds, leaving us immovable and unpersuadable. At a time of uncertainty, we gravitate to certainty.

Facilitators and participants in public debates face two hard truths. First, this era of rising polarization, rampant misinformation and low media literacy drives rapid judgment, reducing people’s openness to information that challenges their world views. And second, consensus is impossible without dialogue, and dialogue itself is extraordinarily difficult if no parties are open to changing their minds.

How can business, government and non-profit leaders engage their stakeholders in this polarized context? How can we make progress on difficult, divisive issues – leading to better decisions that earn broader support?

As someone deeply involved in both business and public policy, this question has preoccupied me, and led me to a few principles.

1.?????? Persuasion is driven less by data, and more by experience and relationships.

Think about a moment where you changed your mind about a person, an organization or an issue. I’ll bet it was driven by an experience or a relationship. For example, American attitudes toward same-sex marriage reversed dramatically between 2000 and 2020. While some of the shift can be attributed to changing attitudes among younger Americans, a bigger clue came from a 2015 poll by the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group: 46 percent of respondents knew a same-sex couple who had gotten married. When you have a relationship with someone affected by an issue, you are much more likely to be open to changing your mind.

2.?????? Never rely on one-way communication for persuasion.

We must let go of the ancient, dramatic idea of the persuasive speech that melts hearts and changes minds everywhere. Yes, it can still happen, but the chances of success are so slim that it’s a bad bet. Instead, think of a speech as a way to earn trust and confidence, identify common values, provide essential context or information, and open the door -- or the floor -- to dialogue.

3.?????? Dialogue begins with empathy.

One of my formative experiences with difficult dialogue came in 2016, when I helped develop a public engagement program to inform Ontario’s Anti-Racism Strategy. It was an emotional time, coming shortly after the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report and the Canadian launch of Black Lives Matter.

In the context of so much injustice, pain and trauma, getting too quickly into solutions and strategies would have been pointless. The process had to begin with listening, and with the sharing of personal experiences. This can help unlock empathy – the ability to understand how someone else feels – which in turn must be followed by communication from the leader that shows them they have been heard and understood. Only then can we enter the solution space.

4.?????? Face time: The richer the medium, the better the potential for dialogue.

At least a decade before email and the Internet were in common use, Daft and Lengel developed media richness theory, suggesting that the richest communication would be determined by (1) the availability of instant feedback; (2) the capacity of the medium to transmit multiple cues (such as tone or body language); (3) the use of natural language; and (4) the personal focus of the medium.

To put it simply, the richest medium for dialogue is face-to-face, in-person communication. The poorest (in today’s context) is email. Leaders should avoid making important decisions or discussing sensitive topics on email. If face-to-face dialogue is not practical, we need to find the most visual, personal and synchronous alternatives possible – particularly on complex, emotional and divisive topics.

5.?????? A credible convenor can make a difference.

While leadership is always about making choices, sometimes leadership is not about making decisions, but instead about convening dialogue. Leaders and organizations that enjoy credibility with different stakeholders, and build platforms or communities that bring diverse interests together, can play vital roles in these polarizing times. The opportunity to do so inspired me to take on the leadership of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce in 2024.

6.?????? Leaders earn trust by listening to learn, and being open to change.

In struggling with my own emotions about recent events in the Middle East, I was struck by a research finding: while many Israelis and Palestinians no longer believe that a two-state solution is possible, polls show that a majority would support it if they trusted the other side to make it happen.

While most leaders’ decisions don’t have such dire stakes, the challenge of trust is universal. Leaders don’t merit trust simply because of their titles or their mandates; they earn it through actions that demonstrate their values. In dialogue, this means listening to learn, not listening for an opening that can help win the argument. When our passions are stirred, this can be very hard; it often means being intentional about preventing one’s own mental steel door of certainty from slamming shut. Leaders must always be open to ethical influence by their stakeholders.

While leaders must always be true to their purpose, values and principles, in daily debates and decisions they must always challenge themselves — and their teams — with the moderator’s simple but meaningful question: Are you open to changing your mind?