Creating an Environment for Debate

Debate, particularly technical debate, is healthy. Debate helps flesh out the issues. It helps build shared context. It illuminates hidden requirements or hidden biases.

Debate can be passionate, even heated. Debate is not comfortable for everyone. Debate can favor those most skilled in the techniques of debate. Debate can leave people feeling dissatisfied or disenfranchised. Debate can ruin a team.

The question is how do you create an environment that fosters productive debate while avoiding the negative aspects?

Debate is a process. It has steps and guidelines, triggers and rules. Here are the process guidelines that I've used to help promote healthy debate:

a) Recognize debate is a process. It has a beginning, middle, and end. Debate will not continue indefinitely without resolution. The goal is for the participants to all reach a joint conclusion. That may not be possible, but the ultimate decision should be intellectual not emotional, and all participants should understand each perspective.

b) Recognize the value and necessity of debate as a constructive force. Give it the time necessary.

c) Empower constructive dissension. Elevate those who are more naturally quiet and seek their input. Encourage new and different perspectives.

d) Do NOT allow intimidation. Intimidation discourages debate and is a technique commonly used to shut down discussion.

e) Require transparency with relevant participants. Discussions and decisions should be documented. Individuals should not be allowed to say one thing to one person and a different thing to another person.

f) Encourage multi-modal communication. Certain individuals speak better in person with a whiteboard. Others aren't able to formulate ideas effectively without time and express themselves better in written format. Do not preclude one or the other.

g) Eliminate emotion. Emotion doesn't have a place. Whether the debate is technical, philosophical, or religious, the debate should be intellectual not emotional and never physical.

h) Facilitate face-to-face discussion. Create a level playing ground. Encourage discussion. Do not allow either party to shut down or attempt to intimidate. The goal is to move the conversation from combative to constructive debate.

i) Watch for signals of an impasse. Typically impasses can be resolved with better requirements, or better understanding of different perspectives, or just further debate. However, sometimes the debate boils down to a core difference in beliefs that can't be resolved without following both paths to see the outcome, which often just isn't possible. Once it is boiled down to a core belief without emotion and a full understanding of both sides, often the parties can "agree to disagree". At that point, a decision is necessary and it isn't that one person is more right or more wrong.

j) Validate that everyone feels they were heard. If an impasse is reached, but individuals feel their point wasn't listened to or they weren't able to effectively communicate it, then the discussion is not yet complete. Everyone must feel heard to be able to support either decision.

j) Clearly identify the decider. If there is an impasse, then at the end of the debate there will be a decision. Participants need to know who that decider is and how he or she intends to decide. Those expectations need to be communicated.

In my experience, the number one trap that people fall into is that they allow intimidation. Intimidation is corrosive to constructive debate and a constructive corporate culture.

The number two trap is that there is no clear decider and no clear path to resolution.

The third trap is poor facilitation. If the moderator can't facilitate a productive conversation, then the pressure for resolution builds, but the resolution comes without everyone feeling heard.