> How can one ensure that group-think does not occur when a group
> participates in regular dialogue sessions? And is it essential to have a
> "devil's advocate", or does the dialogue process itself have a built-in
> safeguard against group-think?
Here is further information about dialogue from William Isaacs. These
practices, behaviors, choices, and experiences do not seem (to me) to
promote a negative-meaning "group-think" (as opposed to another
correspondent's note about a more positive kind of groupthink).
>From an online review of "The Fifth Discipline"
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/jfullerton/review/learning.htm
Organizational Dynamics. Autumn 1993. "Taking Flight: Dialogue,
Collective Thinking, and Organizational Learning", William N. Isaacs
Quotes
+ invite people to explain their thinking
+ willing to loosen the "grip of certainty" about all views,
including their own
+ the underlying fragmentation and incoherence in
everyone's thought begins to appear
+ Extreme views become stated and defended
+ What is the disturbance going on in me
last of quotes (more quotes about dialogue and quotes from Isaacs within
review - team learning section)
I seem to remember comments about tears in dialogue due to the powerful
new awareness of how much understanding has not been shared.
Perhaps there should be a comment added here about the cause for tears. It
is possible that tears may be due to the new sense of the immensity of the
task. Here we have numerous individuals. Each one thinks they are right.
Most do not know the elements of their view or the elements of others'
views. It's possible to think that others do not have a view, and then be
surprised when we find that they do. Note - I am not crying nor advocating
tears :)
My imagination of dialogue has involved two particularly related elements.
One is that the dialogue isn't limited by definition or, when limited, has
a field of freedom that is reasonable for the context of the participants.
Next is that people will have a point of view and explanation for their
work behavior that is based on their experience; probably most points of
view will never have been shared with the workgroup. Those points of view,
maybe particularly as they represent working differences and a
representation of work knowledge need to either be offered or drawn out.
(I do not mean to offer a harsh prescription here!) Somebody doesn't work
quickly because they fear that otherwise they will be too tired to do the
job correctly at the end of the day. Who knows - maybe nutrition, sleep,
scheduling of manual work, sharing tasks, knowing that others have the
same tiredness after working all day will be part of the conversation.
Someone with the perception that more should be accomplished and another
with the perception that that is not possible could perhaps increase the
amount of knowledge that is shared.
In a dialogue, I hope that I'd do the following.
The apostle Paul says, "speak the truth in love". (I'd rather not
hear too much of it - as it addresses me - any other way!)
Share differing knowledge (or simply knowledge) of work processes.
When possible, acknowledge accomplishments and what was required for
the accomplishments to take place.
Acknowledge positive things that could happen through applying
knowledge to work.
Offer options that may not be known among the team.
Have a nice day
John Paul Fullerton
jpf@myriad.net
--"John Paul Fullerton" <jpf@mail.myriad.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>