Thanks for your posting, Steven. I really appreciate your bringing Buber
and Schrage's concepts into this thread. A clarification, and a couple of
thoughts follow that I felt were worth sharing---
Dr. Steve Eskow wrote:
> Richard suggests that the purpose of dialog is singular: the search for
> meaning. And he then posits that those meanings had better be shared
> beforehand, so that when action was needed it emerged from previously
> shared meaning.
what I had hoped to say was that a purpose for dialog was the search for a
shared meaning.
> A broader notion of dialog suggests, to use Michael Schrage's term, that
> dialog is about "shared minds," and sharing minds can include sharing
> knowledge as well as meaning, sharing talents as well as meaning, sharing
> ideas and possinbilities.
and Schrage's definition fits quite well with what I had in mind.
> In such a view dialog and action are not distinct episodes but a regular
> oscillation in the life of an organization.
internal dialog is a regular oscillation in many people's life--I can
appreciate organizational situations where they occur regularly through
informal and formal processes. This is very close to my thoughts about
strategic conversations. My point, though, was that dialog and action
occur simultaneously only in action thrillers in the cinema. for
instance, in your scenario:
> Thus: we are a sales organization, selling a certain product for a certain
> price to certain customers.
>
> A competitor comes out with a new product that threatens our survival.
>
> In the nondialogical organization the assumption might be that leadership,
> the top of the hierarchical pyramid, decides what to do--and if there
> truly is no time for reflection and dialog that may at times be necessary.
>
> In the dialogical organization the leader realizes that he may not have
> the right answer, or any answer at all, and that in any case the answer is
> useless if it is not absorbed, internalized, and then acted on by those
> who have to encounter the challenge in the marketplace.
>
> The leader, then, calls a meeting, and the dialog begins. The dialog is in
> this view the necessary beginning of all action.
I like this concept--the dialog is the necessary beginning of all action.
This fits quite well with my world view (since my childhood, I've equated
"word" with power and mystery). However "word" precedes action. That was
the point I shared and made. In strategic conversations, the concept is
to join together in a strenous conversation that explores "what if's" to
the point that we have a pretty good idea of what we would do in that
situation. I've had the opportunity to watch a lot of "meetings" in the
last several years. I've noticed that for many people meetings are an
opportunity to process, to table activities, to hide and often cower from
making necessary decisions.
Decisive action emanates from a decision. That is the focal point of many
hours of meetings and conversations, too often never realized. How many
times do groups wait until there is no volition left, but only reaction.
My understanding of dialog includes the need for authentic speech--and for
speaking only "when the spirit moves me." In a dialogical organization,
Steven, there should be no need to wait for a "leader" to call a meeting.
We are all leaders, and followers, and listeners and thinkers and
speakers--filling the role that emerges in the present. I may decide to
take an action on behalf of only myself, regardless of what others said in
a community dialog session. I may decide to act differently or the same
as others. Ideally, if we share a mutual purpose and have continued to
strengthen that purpose through sharing meanings in dialog, we will act in
concert with one another.
In a hierarchical situation, this leader (from your scenario) is simply
looking for sound counsel and technical advice. The decision will be hers
or his to make--and the consequences will be hers or his primarily.
On another note, I always enjoyed the dialectic process. It strengthens
and tunes the wits, just like wrestling is good for the sinews. The
dialectic, though, also requires effective listening in order to
comprehend the thesis and offer an appropriate and relevant antithesis.
The reason I suspect Bohm fired against "discussion" is because no one was
listening--and so many people had left the discipline of dialog and
dialectic behind them.
walk in peace,
Doc
-- "The spiritual gift on this inner journey is the knowledge that in chaos I can not only survive, but I can thrive, that there is vitality in that chaotic field of energy." -Parker J. PalmerThresholds--developing critical skills for living organizations Richard C. "Doc" Holloway Olympia, WA ICQ# 10849650 Please visit our new website, still at <http://www.thresholds.com/> <mailto:learnshops@thresholds.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>