What got you interested in Dialogue?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by André Clements on April 15, 2008 at 8:30pm

Hi there

I can't (nor would I want to :) claim to be terribly familiar with Bohm's Dialogue.

Having said that, I am however personally intensely aware of the vale of dialogic action in any Creative process(background in information design and learning facilitation), especially when 'Creative' is defined as the processes, systems and culture involved in finding, nurturing, optimizing and applying new and or different relations between previously un- or differently- related elements, towards solving challenge and/or affecting 'goodness'. (Sallus/wellness/health/prosperity/wellbeing)

So, to be honest I joined the group simply because the word dialogue, especially in the context of the general ethos in huddlemind, appeals to my affinity for discourse. And a cursory exploration of the content linked to above did yield that (Dialogue is)'primarily a means of exploring the field of thought'.

To the extent that Dialogue is formally - or otherwise - codification of doing that, of working with thought, specifically interactive group thought, I'd like to find out more and explore how it relates to other modalities and conceptual and theoretical frameworks and codified 'technologies' such as for example Clean Language & Clean Space, Salutogenesys, NLP, coaching, action learning, narrative counseling etc. and especially that which might spontaneously emerge from the Dialogue

André SC

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kirsten Pearson on April 16, 2008 at 10:42am

Thanks Andre for the wonderfully articulate reply. Some meaty discourse is in order then!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Morris on April 17, 2008 at 11:34am

Hi,

I was interested in Dialogue because it is a term used quite a bit in Gestalt therapy. As a Gestalt counsellor and facilitator I use the term to describe an 'authentic' meeting between two people or within a group. The gestalt approach aims to enable clients to have a more whole experience in interactions with others and their lives. So the idea of being aware not just of thoughts but emotions and physical sensations is important.

From my reading of the david-bohm.net piece it would seem that Dialogue groups are very similar to gestalt groupwork. I'd be interested to take part in a Dialogue group to feel what that was like in comparison. Without having been in such a group, and only having read the article, I am finding it hard to see a lot of diffrences with the kind of groupwork I have done over the years. Except perhaps in its purpose. Nevertheless, anything that gets us experiencing the world and meeting others in a more meaningful way gets me excited!

Group process does what group process does, regardless of the explicit purpose of the group, the important thing is whether we are able to enrich that process by being more aware of what is going on on many different levels.

I have lots of questions, comparisons and observations after reading about Dialogue groups but I will leave it at that for now!

Warm regards
Paul

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kirsten Pearson on April 17, 2008 at 12:38pm

Hi Paul, nice blog you have. The outdoor pictures are great. From both your and Andre's posts, comparing frameworks seems to be conversation with legs. So I've started a discussion called Multi-disciplinary mash up! where we can compare apples with apples and bananas.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by clive barrett on April 17, 2008 at 4:43pm

I am a process facilitator, working towards alignment - an "intersection of the minds" - in groups/organisations needing to move from "here" to "there". I was fortunate to be part of an organisation which invested time and money putting people together around the fire to explore what is happening in themselves and their team, in the belief that self-awareness improves individual and collective performance. As a facilitator of these processes, my own self-awareness was integral to the outcome. It was the toughest role I have ever had, calling on me to face things I'd rather ignore. But then, these processes were tough on everybody.

The core "mechanism" for this time together with your team was dialogue. My understanding of Dialogue is not formal, but evolved during this work - I will try to describe it. Dialogue is an open form of communication, a collective inquiry into ..... whatever is there at the time. In dialogue, you suspend any notion of certainty and judgement, slow down the pressure for solutions and appreciate silence, intently listen into and become conscious of yourself (and others), especially your feelings, needs, assumptions, impulses, etc. - then surface these feelings, needs, etc. - and build new, shared meaning. You invite others to explore what you have "put out there", and to share what it is raising in them. You must be willing to explore what seems to be dangerous and risky, even looking for small disagreements and discrepancies to probe further.

It calls on intuition, multiple perspectives and new ideas to create a systems view of an issue, not only into the content of what each person says, thinks and feels, but also into the underlying assumptions. It provides space for new thought, reduces the controlling instincts of authority and hierarchy, and increases creative and collective participation. Dialogue does not deliberately try to alter behaviour or get the other person to agree or move to a predetermined goal; it is more about exploring and resolving - so it values uncertainty, difference, complexity, not knowing.

Dialogue may appear chaotic, but is has within the potential to perceive new trends in rapidly changing conditions. The outcomes from dialogue are the movement away from fragmentation towards wholeness and the development of shared meaning. This is essential to achieve alignment and sustain high performance in a continually changing environment.

Dialogue is appropriate to explore complex strategic issues, to build a deeper sense of community and to examine root causes of behaviour and results. It is probably less appropriate when a group needs to converge, reach agreement and act quickly.

For some reason, many people hated the process of dialogue. It seemed to raise stuff they could not or would not deal with. Others, who were "dialogue-fit", loved it - it released energy and insight that took them to the next level. Still others were more neutral - they just didn't seem to "get it". They did not actively partake, but also did not resist. But then I guess that's the point - if we trust in process, then "what is, is".

So what would I like to explore? Perhaps whatever surfaces from what I have written.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kirsten Pearson on April 24, 2008 at 3:58pm

Hi Clive, nice to have you here and thanks for explaining Dialogue. I can concur about (paraphrasing) love it or hate it! Being in Dialogue seems to bring one to personal mastery challenges, which are not always easy.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by clive barrett on April 24, 2008 at 7:01pm

HI Kirsten, good to be in dialogue with you (and hopefully others). In describing my experience of dialogue, I hope others can add to my limited understanding and maybe undo some of my assumptions. I am particularly interested, in a results-focussed (read "project management") environment, how others have experienced dialogue, and whether it has proved useful, even relevant. Again today, in a "project environment" I experienced people's absolute denial and frustration that dialogue could inform the thinking and lead to a better outcome (i.e. improve the traditional cost, quality, time constraints). At a simple level, it seems that asking more questions (e.g. for alignment, understanding, creative ideas) - in their minds - got in the way of finding answers, solutions, completing a task, getting paid!!! Clive

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Morris on April 24, 2008 at 7:50pm

Hi Clive and Kirsten,

Clive, I liked your decription of dialogue. It seems to follow the way a Gestalt model would describe dialogue. When I read some of the theory on the websites you recommended Kirsten, I was surprised not to see any of the Gestalt theorists referenced. They must have informed each other at some point! Or maybe it was just synchronicity in action!

From what I've read so far (admittedly very little!), it seems that Dialogue as an authentic form of communication is a starting point for many types of interpersonal as well as organisational work. I'm not sure if you have heard of Martin Buber, who differentiated anI -Thou kind of communication, with an I-It in other words, when I see you as a person, and communicate with you as such instead of seeing you as an object, for example a door to door salesperson sees you as a potential sale, they are not interested in you as a person.

So the challenge is getting people in organisations to talk to each other as people rather than as functions, job titles, or obstacles to getting what they want.

To promote dialogic relationships in the organisation or team is to promote geniune curiousity in the other, with a view of being more open about ones own position.

It occurs to me that once individuals see each other in this way, they are likely to be open to seeing they way the organisation works in an more open "I-thou" way, that is to say, relate to the organisation as it actually is.

OK, as I read back over this I realise that this is turning into an essay, sorry! I'll try to get to the point!

I think the main point is that if I can find a way of getting a team to examine what they do, who they are, how they relate to one another etc etc , by using a more "dialogic" way of communicating, then this will shift how they approach the work. So using Dialogue as a tool to help formulate the goals, rather than having goals and trying to get their using dialogue.

Ok, now I'll stop. I'm not sure if I'm making any sense. It's been a long day!

Regards
Paul

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kirsten Pearson on April 29, 2008 at 6:17pm

Hi Paul,

The points you're raising seem very relevant. Certainly, organisationally speaking, I agree that shifting the way we communicate, can shift the way we approach work.

The person who 'mentored' me in Dialogue constantly reminds me that Dialogue is an intervention into the way we currently speak and that in order to understand why we'd want an intervention, we'd need to understand what we're doing currently. (Haha, and my background conversation is always that he's a purist!!) From dialogue theory, for the most part we are usually in debate. The roots of the word debate are 'to beat down'. In a framework in which we beat each other down and our collective intelligence is in direct competition, distrust, blame and judgment abound. In this kind of environment one certainly doesn't feel safe to voice opinions, unless we are skilled at swaying others to our way of thinking. In fact in traditional command-and-control organisations, the person most skilled at swaying others to their way of thinking usually succeeds. So, at best we're pretending like we're a team, whilst we're digging holes under each other, because we all want the corner office. From his studies of organisations, Dr Chris Argyris discovered what he saw to be a world-wide generic pattern, which he called Organisational Defensive routines. Dialogue proposes an alternative framework. One which ultimately purposes to unleash organisational intelligence, deals with wholeness and does not smooth over the edges at the expense of conveying meaning.

From my experience applying it (which I try to do as much of the time as possible), Dialogue can be used both with groups and one-on-one.

Clive, likewise it is good to be in online Dialogue here. Project management related - being part of the time a Project Manager - this is something which interests me and which I'd like to explore further too. Feels like a burning question that could be carried. I certainly have similar experiences. In the task-focused environment, I find myself with the impression that there is less and less time and that Dialogue might be a luxury, along with courtesy and patience!

I have 2 thoughts about this - one is that the organisational culture I (/ we) have become accustomed is one in which we have time to put out fires, but not that much to prevent them in the first place. The other is that there is a quickening of the pace and I wonder how much longer the "center can hold". What kind of strategies are available to deal with this quickening / exponential acceleration of change? Is it possible to step out of it? What would be the consequences? One of the top 10 questions for international Conversation Week was to do with achieving personal balance in demanding times. Aware that this is going divergent.

To get back to the crux of it - Is Dialogue relevant in a results-focussed environment? (eg project management)
For me, some of the agreements that I've had with those around me have been pivotal in together getting a project redirected. E.g. suspending my assumptions about how something should be and hearing how it really is, so that I could deal with that. When things 'went wrong', attempting not to assign blame or be reactive when I feel defensive, but examine causative factors and action steps from those. Listening to each other to find out where we're at as a team and individually, so that we could respond accordingly. If I need space just to get on with it - having a container in which I'm able to make this known and acknowledge others is important to me.

Thoughts? I certainly will try here to hold any positions I might take lightly, so that they can be explored and don't purport to have definitive answers. Through 'hosting' the group, I'd like merely to get the Dialogue flowing and am happy to let it go where it goes.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by clive barrett on April 30, 2008 at 12:17pm

Hi Paul and Kirsten

Oh, to be seen as a human being at work! Maybe even a human being in society, in my community, in my family. Do I really want to be in "I-Thou" with others? I might have to treat my wife as a human being rather than the super-hero I am sure she is or I require her to be. You are so right Paul, and remind me how fallable I am, since if I was genuinely curious in her/your/their troubles, I may be more tender and sensitive and accepting of 'the way things are'. Then to introduce this to my perceptions of work colleagues - you ask so much of me!!! I have only seen this truly at play in an organisation whose leadership was uncompromising in its desire to see people as people. And this largely due to the scars people carried due to the abuse suffered at the hands of the previous authoritarian regime.

And Kirsten, one of the things you're reminding me of, is that I can't "make others do it (dialogue)" - instead I should be more aware of my own feelings and thoughts and stay with them, suspending my assumptions, listening in, mindful of my reactions and defensive patterns, etc. Because (your other critical point, like Paul's) - I need to work with what "is".

Yes! The quickening pace, deadlines, pressure, constant change, threat of failure .......... my experience of organisations in this mode (is there one that isn't?) is that it is breathe in...breathe in...breathe in.... until they (people) burst. Or they can breathe out. Ah, enter left stage - Dialogue, right on cue.

Of (Argyris') 'defensive routines' - what I hold on to from this is as follows: If I am confronted with a similar situation a second time, I will likely make the same decision again (if it was succesful the first time) or a different decision (if the first one didn't work). In either case I am no better off if I didn't invest effort in what he calls 'second loop learning' - that is, after making the decision the first time around, I examine my assumptions, etc. to understand what led to this particular decision of choice, and modify them as necessary. Just because I made a different decision the second time, does not mean I am any wiser if I am using the same 'intelligence' to make this decision as I did the first. And by 'intelligence' is meant what is inside me rather than using different information available to me.

It's probably the difference between winning a debate with yourself (so decision #2 wins out, but you are no better off), and entering into dialogue with yourself and renewing your assumptions. As you correctly imply, even the winning debater is no better off - but it's one helluva ego rush! (I can't recall if Argyris spoke of Dialogue in the context of routines, but I'm sure he will forgive me for linking them.)

Lastly, some feedback from last week (my frustrations you may recall, or see April 24):

In the tough job of achieving an "intersection of the minds", alignment, redirection in a project, one of the 'tricks', I've found, is playing the village idiot (a role I am very capable of, I hear you say). "I don't understand that", I say. Or "what does this mean" or "explain that again, please" or "is this the right question to be asking." You can see the light bulbs going on, but my goodness, the frustration others show, wondering what on earth I am doing on the team. I haven't even delivered anything yet, I just keep asking more questions. Am I stalling? Get on with it, Clive!!!

My frustration of last week turned into hope (for Dialogue, as I'd kept the team in the mode of "is this the right question, what are our assumptions, why are we anxious to solve the problem rather than help the client understand what 'is'?" etc.). When the Client saw what we'd done (or hadn't done) he was angry - "this isn't what I wanted from you!!" Then we showed him the information we were working off (they had paid a lot of money for it). "Ah," he said, "I see what you mean, this is not right." (Trick #2 - give the other party something to look at, to engage them, but make sure it's missing critical information or has glaring errors.) If he is astute, maybe soon he will appreciate the value of what we 'didn't do'. Imagine the backlash (later) if we'd tried to present the right solution to the wrong question.

So here's to Dialogue!
Clive

PS: Not sure yet what the team feels. They seemed a bit dazed!
PPS: Ego - love it or hate it!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kirsten Pearson on May 21, 2008 at 10:22am

Hi all,

I've been away for a bit. A small holiday and then general post-holiday busyness. Hmm so much delicious thought bites to pick up on.

Ego - I've been reading some material on holistic health and one of the ideas about ego that I'm taking up is that it too is part of the whole of who we are and having an ego is part of the human experience. Previously I'd say I erred on the side of the "hate it" camp. In terms of ego and Dialogue - I've experienced Dialogue to be a tool which can be used to create non-separation. For example in those instances in which there is stony silence between people, where through examining meaning, misinterpretations can be found and shared meaning created. More thoughts on ego and Dialogue?

Clive - how's the team doing now? Paul, I've been co-hosting weekly Dialogue sessions and one of the regular Dialoguers keeps mentioning Gestalt theory, so since it's coming up on my radar in relation to Dialogue, looks like I have an appointment with a Gestalt immersion!

Clive you wrote: "In either case I am no better off if I didn't invest effort in what he calls 'second loop learning' - that is, after making the decision the first time around, I examine my assumptions, etc. to understand what led to this particular decision of choice, and modify them as necessary
...And by 'intelligence' is meant what is inside me rather than using different information available to me."

This sparks an interest for me in the process that one employs to enter into second loop learning. A lot of the dialogues I've been involved in have had personal mastery come up. How does one tap into that intelligence that is already inside you? How does "staring at one's ceiling" come into it? Is it an active mental process? Does mindfulness have a connect with it? Is it a partners activity? I recently went on a Nancy Kline workshop. Her Time to Think process is interesting. Do we think best when others help us to create the space to think?

Well those are my curiosities for now. Good to be back in dialogue on the page with you.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Morris on May 21, 2008 at 1:16pm

Hi There,

Kirsten, it's good to hear that someone in CT is quoting Gestalt theory! Gestaltists seem thin on the ground in SA.

I am still hoping for a trip to SA later in the year to run a workshop and I've got my fingers crossed that the trip will coincide with a Dialogue!

Just reading Clives post reminds me that we have to relate to others on different levels. In order to get through my day I also need to relate to the other as an "it" rather than a "thou". It is necessary to see the bus driver as a bus driver in order to perform the transaction of paying him and him driving me etc. I'd be an exhausted wreck if I had to try and have a deep contact with everyone I interact with as I go through my day in London. So you're absolutely right Clive, it's neither possible or desirable to always interact in an "i-thou" way. But perhaps more awareness (good gestalt term!), of when I am doing one or the other is where the learning most lies.

Regards
Paul

Regards
Paul

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page