Argumentative vs. Parallel Thinking: Communication Among Security Guards
Argumentative Thinking: The Adversarial Approach
Argumentative thinking is rooted in debate and opposition. When security guards operate in this mode, they approach discussions as contests to be won. One guard proposes a theory about a security breach, and others immediately look for flaws or counterarguments.
Example scenario: During a post-incident review, Guard A suggests installing additional cameras in the parking lot. Guard B immediately counters that lighting is the real issue. Guard C argues that both miss the point, patrol frequency is what needs changing. Each guard defends their position, sometimes dismissing others' ideas to strengthen their own case.
While this approach can expose weak reasoning and test ideas rigorously, it comes with significant drawbacks:
Ego becomes involved – Guards may defend positions to avoid "losing" rather than finding the best solution
Wastes time and energy – More effort goes into winning arguments than solving problems
Creates team friction – Repeated adversarial exchanges can damage professional relationships
Discourages participation – Quieter team members may withhold valuable insights to avoid conflict
Slows decision-making – Critical response time is lost in debate
The adversarial nature of argumentative thinking often stems from traditional Western educational systems that emphasize debate, or from paramilitary backgrounds where chain of command creates win-lose dynamics.
Parallel Thinking: Moving in the Same Direction
Parallel thinking, a concept popularized by Edward de Bono, offers a fundamentally different approach. Instead of opposing each other's ideas, all team members direct their thinking in the same direction at the same time, exploring one aspect of a situation before moving collectively to the next.
The same scenario with parallel thinking: The security team agrees to first examine all facts about the parking lot incident (what happened, when, where). Then they collectively explore possible causes. Next, everyone considers potential solutions without judgment. Finally, they evaluate options together based on agreed criteria.
Key benefits for security teams:
Collaborative exploration – All minds work on the same problem from the same angle simultaneously
Removes ego – No one "wins" or "loses" since everyone explores ideas together
Encourages participation – Junior guards can contribute safely without fear of being "shot down"
Faster decisions – Less time debating, more time analyzing and acting
Builds team cohesion – Creates a sense of shared purpose and mutual respect
Better solutions – Ideas are examined thoroughly rather than prematurely dismissed
Making the Shift
Transitioning from argumentative to parallel thinking requires cultural change within security teams:
Leadership buy-in – Supervisors must model and enforce parallel thinking approaches
Training – Guards need explicit instruction in collaborative thinking methods
Meeting structure – Briefings and debriefs should follow parallel thinking frameworks
Recognition – Reward collaborative problem-solving, not "winning" arguments
Safe environment – Create psychological safety where all ideas are welcomed and explored
The Bottom Line
Argumentative thinking has its place, rigorous testing of ideas matters in security work where mistakes can be costly. However, when argumentative thinking dominates daily communication, it undermines team effectiveness.
Parallel thinking doesn't mean agreeing with everything or avoiding critical analysis. It means directing that analytical power collectively rather than competitively. For security guards, whose work depends on teamwork, situational awareness, and rapid decision-making, parallel thinking offers a more effective path forward.
In an industry where "we" is more important than "I," thinking together beats thinking against each other every time.