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 creative problem identification and problem solving". Dialogue is focused on the thinking process, how perceptions and cognitions are formed by our experiences. The assumption is that if we understand how thought process works, we will think better collectively and communicate better.

A collective review of work by these three theorists on the concept of dialogue suggests the following common foundation. Dialogue in essence is a cognitive process, where individuals meet in a private space and through facilitation, agree to do nothing else but talk about their thoughts. Their concentration is not with winning arguments, reaching conclusions, expressing consensus or anything else but conversing. This creates environment of exploration to find meaning, correlation and/or possibility.Dialogue as a communications device within organizations allows individuals or groups of individuals with different assumptions, perspectives and opinions to have a meaningful conversation. It is an important business component to any organization because it enables objective conversation on issues.

Objective conversation promotes collaboration, open mindedness, unrestrained thinking, finding common ground, potential identification and resolution of problems, and creates the prospect to discover innovative possibilities. The consequences or challenges within organizations from a lack of dialogue are significant.Absence of dialogue occurs not only in the largest companies, but in any size company and at every level of the organization. It exists between managers and their subordinates, between departments, between management and the union, among co-workers, even between a business and its clients.

There are two main consequences that result for a lack of dialogue; the first is diminished organizational performance. When dialogue does not occur decisions are made with incomplete data, or implemented without understanding or buy-in by the people who are responsible for making them succeed (Allen, 2012).The second consequence of operating with a lack of honest dialogue is mistrust and suspicion. An adversarial attitude permeates the environment and relationships are characterized by: me vs.

you; us vs. them. Instead of goodwill there may be deep, often hidden, animosities and resentments. Rather than a common purpose or vision, the atmosphere of divisiveness; one against another exists.

The more you win the more I lose and visa versa. Unfortunately, mistrust, suspicion, and alienation are often the rule rather than the exception within organizations.It is a pervasive and insidious problem whose consequence is severe and far reaching and yet which is accepted, by many, as a fact of organizational life (Allen, 2012). Leaders can overcome these dialogue challenges and make their organizations a success by following some very simple but important principles. Ensure the mechanism is established to enable each staff member to have a voice that is heard, encourage manager to engage in open and honest dialogue, listen to opinions which differed from their own and refrain from making decisions in spite of objections from the people whose support is needed.

By entering into honest dialogue, it is far more likely that leaders and members could reach consensus for the best decision and one which each could support (Allen, 2012). By establishing an environment free of restraints, encouraging the airing of all the pros and cons, and/or misgivings through open and honest dialogue; the leader can make available the possibility of reaching genuine harmony within the workplace.