Replying to LO24036 --
At 03:58 PM 2/22/00 PST, Celia Moriarty wrote:
>I have been digesting works of David Bohm, Peter Senge, Bill Issacs etc.
>on dialogue. I am doing this in order to better articulate and develop my
>work as a facilitator. Initially I though WOW, this is what I do, but then
>as the original
>concept of Bohmian dialogue "is not concerned with deliberatey trying to
>alter or change behaviour nor to get the participants to move toward a
>predetermined goal."(Dialogue a Proposal D.Bohm etal)I realised it isn't
>what I do. Indeed Richard Burg later suggested that dialogue is not
>really applicable in organisations and that facilitators distort the
>process.
I would respectfully disagree with both of Burg's reported assertions.
Perhaps this is because, as a practitioner, I take a very non-absolutist
view of dialogue. First, there are ample examples of the desirability of
organizational conversations that don't "get the participants to move
toward a predetermined goal." I'm presently assisting my organization to
make time and space for a full range of conversational types, including
dialogue as a means for building shared context. In this, I'm relying
very much on Margaret Wheatley's (and others') emphasis on the importance
of information-in-relationship as the "stuff" of organizational life.
Secondly, to say that facilitators "distort the process" seems to me to
make a wide range of unvalidated assumptions about what "facilitator"
might mean in this context. That we might take up as a separate thread.
>I work whith senior teams who need to move through an issue
>(intra or interorganisational), have limited time and need a better
>outcome. We definitley have a purpose even though it may not yet be
>defined.
My own stance is to agree with Isaacs and others who would say (I think)
that in this case, "dialogue" in a more formal sense might not be
appropriate, but that related skills and approaches might allow the group
to decide to move toward the less goal-directed conversation which would
still serve the overall objectives of the organization.
>I think what I do as the facilitator is suspend the groups assumptions,
>allowing them to get on with it.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you elaborate, to the list or
off-line?
> In a sense I remove (as much as
>possible)that element from their early communication. This way the group
>(I work on the belief that THEY have the answer to the issue) can deal
>with the issue not their emotional confusion and incoherence of all the
>parameters of the subject.
I think to me the emotional confusion and incoherence associated with an
'issue' is not an externality, but an inherent part. HOW we choose to
deal with it is another matter.
(snip)
>To some of you may see my intervention as a facilitator as cutting off the
>wholeness of the system of dialgue. That may be true. It is done for
>expediencey and in order to work within the achievement culture of the
>group.
Celia, I can understand your desire as a consultant to meet your clients'
expectations, so would not criticise your approach. But in my experience
the "achievement culture" of such a group, if not addressed, will probably
keep them from finding a depth of engagement such as that sought in
dialogue.
> I do not as yet spend time with them reflecting on what they did
>and how they can learn from it.
And to me, that is fundamental to a learning approach.
> My clients are not attracted to me because
>they want to learn about their interactions, but because they want a
>better business outcome regarding a specific issue - fast.
To me, "dialogue" and "fast" are not likely bed-fellows.
> What I'm
>wondering is if there is room to move to the former with them after we get
>tangible results.
Possibly, but I've never been able to facilitate it. Others?
>So I'm interested in how some of you view dialogue and it's application
>within the organisation. I agree that in it's original form (what I would
>liken to Socratic Dialogue) it is rarely appropriate. But the basic
>premises on which the process is based - the identification of those
>factors that distort our communication and the creation of a forum in
>which a flow of meaning emerges through group synergy, is most applicable
>in business. In particular with a senior experienced group who can think
>conceptually about the big picture and it's implications.
What do others think?
Malcolm Burson
--Malcolm Burson mburson@mint.net
"I never saw an instance of one or two disputants convincing the other by argument." --- Th. Jefferson
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.