I'm not seeing how the choir director example relates to mine. In my particular case, if you mean someone like the manager is the choir director who decides: Well, at the moment he can't, as he isn't actively involved in the code base, so he doesn't know all the issues. He wants the team to discuss it (and he'll monitor the discussion) so that all the issues come to the table. Then with all the feedback, he can make an informed decision/suggestion.
But he's stuck at the stage where multiple people are arguing in a very non-constructive manner, and so he can't see all the issues on the table. How can he get the different parties to talk without merely repeating their stance?
There are clearly emotions involved. And yes, I do agree with you that it is not necessary for people to discuss them. However, if they are discussed well, then it makes the rest of the discussion easier. The "discussing well" is what many communications books are trying to address. Trying to get to the technical aspects that are causing these feelings is a good idea, but a lot harder if you don't know the feelings.
One person involved is quite senior, incredibly competent, and very rarely gets into arguments. He's definitely getting into one. So there are clearly strong emotions at play. If he's upset, he has a good reason. And at the moment he's refusing to engage and is building walls. Now this might be because the other party is perceived as being dismissive, so he doesn't want to waste time in the discussion.
When one person is appearing dismissive, and the other person is clamming up, how do you get them to talk so that the manager has all the factors to consider on the table? Note that the notion that one is dismissive and the other is upset are merely how I have observed the dialogue - and I may be off. Any attempt at starting a discussion where it is accepted that one side is being dismissive and the other stubborn is likely to blow up.
But he's stuck at the stage where multiple people are arguing in a very non-constructive manner, and so he can't see all the issues on the table. How can he get the different parties to talk without merely repeating their stance?
There are clearly emotions involved. And yes, I do agree with you that it is not necessary for people to discuss them. However, if they are discussed well, then it makes the rest of the discussion easier. The "discussing well" is what many communications books are trying to address. Trying to get to the technical aspects that are causing these feelings is a good idea, but a lot harder if you don't know the feelings.
One person involved is quite senior, incredibly competent, and very rarely gets into arguments. He's definitely getting into one. So there are clearly strong emotions at play. If he's upset, he has a good reason. And at the moment he's refusing to engage and is building walls. Now this might be because the other party is perceived as being dismissive, so he doesn't want to waste time in the discussion.
When one person is appearing dismissive, and the other person is clamming up, how do you get them to talk so that the manager has all the factors to consider on the table? Note that the notion that one is dismissive and the other is upset are merely how I have observed the dialogue - and I may be off. Any attempt at starting a discussion where it is accepted that one side is being dismissive and the other stubborn is likely to blow up.