# Communication Styles Dichotomy Debate Working in triads, two participants argue opposite sides of a communication style dichotomy while a third acts as judge and awards points. Rotating roles across three rounds ensures everyone practices arguing both sides and judging. **Time:** 20 minutes. Based on the 15-30 minute framegame design from Thiagi GameLetter September 2007. **People:** 3 to 24. Triads (groups of 3) ## Choose this exercise **Purpose:** Argue and evaluate the concrete advantages and disadvantages of opposing communication styles. **Use it when:** Use when a team struggles with conflicting work styles, feedback approaches, or interpersonal assumptions. **Skip it when:** Skip when the group is negotiating real organizational policy or during an active personal grievance where mock advocacy could feel invalidating. ## Materials and tools - 10 blank index cards per person - 1 pen or pencil per person - 1 room timer or chime ## Before participants arrive 1. Push chairs along the walls or arrange seating in clusters of three. 2. Distribute 10 index cards and a writing utensil to each seat or participant station. ## Say this to open Different work styles often create friction simply because people favor one side of a natural tension over another. Today we examine both sides of common communication styles. In groups of three, two of you will argue opposing sides of a spectrum for 60 seconds each, while the third person judges and awards points. Then we will rotate so everyone plays every role. ## How to run it ### 1. Introduce style dichotomies (3 minutes) Explain the concept using a familiar spectrum such as Direct versus Indirect communication. Solicit one quick advantage and disadvantage for each side from the room to establish that both sides offer legitimate strengths and risks. ### 2. Form triads and assign initial roles (2 minutes) Direct participants to form groups of three. If one person is left over, they serve as a roaming observer; if two are left over, join them as facilitator. In each triad, designate the tallest person as the first round Judge, and the other two as Presenter A and Presenter B. ### 3. Run round 1 (4 minutes) Announce the first dichotomy: 'Playful versus Serious'. Give all participants 30 seconds of silent thinking. The Judge assigns 'Playful' to Presenter A and 'Serious' to Presenter B. Sound the timer: Presenter A argues for their style and against the opposite for 60 seconds. Sound the timer: Presenter B argues the reverse for 60 seconds. The Judge secretly splits exactly 13 points between two index cards based on persuasiveness and places each card face down by each presenter. ### 4. Run round 2 with rotated roles (3 minutes) Rotate roles clockwise so Presenter A becomes the new Judge. Announce the second dichotomy: 'Concrete versus Abstract'. Run 30 seconds of silent prep, 60 seconds for the first presenter, 60 seconds for the second presenter, and 30 seconds for secret scoring of 13 total points. ### 5. Run round 3 with rotated roles (3 minutes) Rotate roles clockwise again so the remaining participant serves as Judge. Announce the third dichotomy: 'Task-Focused versus Relationship-Focused'. Run 30 seconds of silent prep, 60 seconds for each presenter, and 30 seconds for secret scoring of 13 points. ### 6. Score tally and debrief (5 minutes) Participants collect their face-down cards and privately tally their scores. Ask the group 2 or 3 debrief questions, taking 2 to 3 voluntary shares per question. ## Debrief questions - Which was harder: presenting a case for a style you naturally avoid, or attacking a style you personally prefer? - What arguments did you hear that gave you a new appreciation for the opposite style? - How can your team recognize when a clash in communication is just two valid styles meeting? **Finished output:** Participants complete three rounds of paired advocacy and private scoring across three communication spectrums. ## Remote Form breakout rooms of 3 people. Post the dichotomy and assign roles in the main chat. Presenters speak for 60 seconds each using an unmuted audio feed while the Judge listens. The Judge submits scores privately via direct message in chat or records them on personal scratch paper to share at the end. ## Hybrid Keep in-person triads in the physical room and form dedicated online triads in breakout rooms. Broadcast timing chimes and the dichotomy prompts simultaneously to the room speakers and the video conference audio channel. ## Access and participation choices - Participants may opt to serve as timekeepers or judges throughout if they prefer not to speak competitively. - Written notes during the 30-second prep are fully optional; presenters can speak freely or read bullet points from their index card. - Point tallies remain private; no participant is required to disclose their numerical score. ## If the session gets stuck **A judge attempts to split points as a tie or awards fractions.** Remind judges before round 1 that exactly 13 whole points must be divided (e.g., 7-6, 8-5, 10-3). Because 13 is odd, there can never be an exact tie. **A participant freezes or struggles to attack a communication style.** Remind them to focus on unintended side effects of that style (e.g., 'Being too playful can look like avoiding accountability') rather than personal attacks. ## Terms used here - Dichotomy: A pair of contrasting or opposing principles, styles, or characteristics. - 13-Point Split: A scoring rule requiring an odd number of total points to be divided, forcing a clear winner without permitting ties. ## Participant material: Dichotomy Reference Sheet Sample Dichotomies for Communication and Teamwork: 1. Playful vs. Serious 2. Concrete vs. Abstract 3. Task-Focused vs. Relationship-Focused 4. Direct vs. Indirect 5. Cooperative vs. Competitive 6. Spontaneous vs. Structured Judge Scoring Rule: Divide exactly 13 whole points between the two presenters based on persuasiveness (for example: 7 to 6, 8 to 5, 9 to 4, 10 to 3). No ties, no fractions. ## Sources and adaptation Observed in Thiagi GameLetter, September 2007, under the title 'Communication Styles', published by The Thiagi Group. Extracted the 'Communication Styles' framegame from the September 2007 issue of Thiagi GameLetter. The source newsletter included multiple articles (Level 4 evaluation, book reviews, puzzles); this run sheet focuses specifically on the triad debate activity on communication dichotomies. Fixed the flow to a 20-minute run with three distinct 1-minute presenter rounds and rotated roles. Clarified scoring rules and added remote/hybrid logistics. [The Thiagi Group](https://thiagi.net/archive/www/pfp/IE4H/september2007.html) [The Thiagi Group](http://thiagi.net/archive/www/pfp/IE4H/september2007.html) Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/tgl-september-2007/