The definition of dialogue that we all understand could be
to take part in a conversation or discussion to solve a problem.
To delve a little deeper, Otto Sharm in his MIT courses on leadership
distinguished this type of conversation very well
and tell us what is or what is not a dialogue.
Our daily life is full of this kind of conversations,
this correct conversation or coffee conversation,
that should be correct and are necessary,
but that don't make a difference in the industry.
We talk about what we want to hear.
Then, we have the debates, we can have a dangerous confusion
between dialogues and debates.
These debates are no longer necessary in our industry,
because we can understand them as fights that each one wants to win.
In fact, there are debate competitions in the institutes.
Here, we talk to defend what we think.
After that, we have what we want to get, this dialogue,
which is what we seek to persuade our teams.
We want to share our point of view and reach common knowledge.
Actually, the etymological origin of the word indicates
"Dia", that means "through" and "logos", that means "knowledge".
Reach a solution through sharing our knowledge.
In this moment, we start talking and working for safety.
We will review the different communication possibilities
that can occur in our high risk environment
and that we must be able to manage satisfactorily.
First step, we'll go from less to more in terms of criticality,
but not in terms of importance.
From a positive reinforcement of the expected actions,
to a constructive and constant feedback,
where we will talk about performance from another perspective.
But sometimes, feedback may not be so simple,
because the points of view may not be so close.
So, we will face difficult conversations or sometimes, if we go further,
some corrections when we identify imminent risks
or maybe deliberate misbehaviors.
These four sections will be discussed in the following videos.