Thought and Dialogue
The premise of this essay will present the theorist description of the concept of dialogue, what are the advantages and challenges of promoting it within organizations, and discuss the methods by which the leaders of organizations may utilize dialogue effectively. The concept of dialogue may vary in the description and definition depending on the theorist. Here are three such examples.
Isaac (1993) described his definition of dialogue as a discipline of collective thinking and inquiry, transforming the quality of conversation and thinking that lies beneath. He states the central purpose is simply to establish a field of genuine meeting and inquiry, a setting in which people can allow a free flow of meaning and vigorous exploration of the collective background of their thought, their personal predispositions, the nature of their shared attention, and the rigid features of their individual and collective assumptions.
Dialogue according to Bohm (1996) must have three conditions met. First, participants must suspend assumptions, suspend opinions and look objectively at opinions of others. Second, they must regard each other as colleagues. Thirdly, there must be a facilitator who is experienced in facilitating dialogue. Participants in dialogue must learn to listen to what is on someone else’s mind and withhold judgment or reaching a conclusion. He states that communication processes such as discussions and negotiations are not dialogue because each symbolizes a routine whereby someone tries to win or persuade someone to assume the views of another. Dialogue, he states requires space to give participants the opportunity to talk without restraint.
Schein (1993), “dialogue aims to build a group that can think generatively, creatively, and together. When dialogue works, the group can surmount the creative abilities of its individual members and achieve levels of creative thought that no one would have initially imagined. Dialogue is thus a vehicle for
Isaac (1993) described his definition of dialogue as a discipline of collective thinking and inquiry, transforming the quality of conversation and thinking that lies beneath. He states the central purpose is simply to establish a field of genuine meeting and inquiry, a setting in which people can allow a free flow of meaning and vigorous exploration of the collective background of their thought, their personal predispositions, the nature of their shared attention, and the rigid features of their individual and collective assumptions.
Dialogue according to Bohm (1996) must have three conditions met. First, participants must suspend assumptions, suspend opinions and look objectively at opinions of others. Second, they must regard each other as colleagues. Thirdly, there must be a facilitator who is experienced in facilitating dialogue. Participants in dialogue must learn to listen to what is on someone else’s mind and withhold judgment or reaching a conclusion. He states that communication processes such as discussions and negotiations are not dialogue because each symbolizes a routine whereby someone tries to win or persuade someone to assume the views of another. Dialogue, he states requires space to give participants the opportunity to talk without restraint.
Schein (1993), “dialogue aims to build a group that can think generatively, creatively, and together. When dialogue works, the group can surmount the creative abilities of its individual members and achieve levels of creative thought that no one would have initially imagined. Dialogue is thus a vehicle for
References: Allen, R. K., (2012). The Importance of dialogue in Business: A Case Study. Academic Journal: The Center for Organizational Design. Bohm, D., (1996). On Dialogue. Book, editor Lee Nichol. London: Routledge, hardcover: ISBN 0-415-14911-8, paperback: ISBN 0-415-14912-6, 2004 edition: ISBN 0-415-33641-4 Isaac, W. N., (1993). Taking Flight: Dialogue, Collective Thinking and Organizational Learning. Academic Journal: Organizational Dynamics; Autumn93, Vol.22(2), p24. Schein, E. (1993). On Dialogue, Culture, and Organizational Learning. Academic Journal: Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 40-51.