Dialogue, an activity that might well prove vital to the future health of our civilization. Dialogue and leadership

Bohm Dialogue

"Dialogue resembles a number of other forms of group activity and may at times include aspects of them but in fact it is something new to our culture. We believe that it is an activity that might well prove vital to the future health of our civilization."

"...it is proposed that a form of free dialogue may well be one of the most effective ways of investigating the crisis which faces society, and indeed the whole of human nature and consciousness today. Moreover, it may turn out that such a form of free exchange of ideas and information is of fundamental relevance for transforming culture and freeing it of destructive misinformation, so that creativity can be liberated." 

Dialogue and Leadership

A Dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals. Any controlling authority, no matter how carefully or sensitively applied, will tend to hinder and inhibit the free play of thought and the often delicate and subtle feelings that would otherwise be shared. Dialogue is vulnerable to being manipulated, but its spirit is not consistent with this.
Hierarchy has no place in Dialogue.
Nevertheless, in the early stages some guidance is required to help the participants realize the subtle differences between Dialogue and other forms of group process. At least one or, preferably two, experienced facilitators are essential. Their role should be to occasionally point out situations that might seem to be presenting sticking points for the group, in other words, to aid the process of collective proprioception, but these interventions should never be manipulative nor obtrusive.
Leaders are participants just like everybody else. 
Guidance, when it is felt to be necessary, should take the form of "leading from behind" and preserve the intention of making itself redundant as quickly as possible.

 some extract are from: http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html

Fragmentation of thought, overspecialisation ... Are we aware? and then? Deadliest poison in town!!

A theme that is also dear to Buckminster Fuller - though maybe coming from a different perspective - though may be not... ;-) It is not indifferent that both Bohm and Buckminster come from the world of Science and both talk about higher level of conscienceness and the collective implication of raising to these... the individual is limited in scope and power, but the scope and power of what individuals can achieve together is de-multiplied when collaborative strategies are unveiled, unfolded and put into practice...

About fragmentation of thought: P359 - The Fifth Discipline Filedbook - Team Learning
"The theory of dialogue suggests that breakdown in the effectiveness of teams and organisations are reflective of a broader crisis in the nature of how human beings perceive the world. As a natural mechanism to develop meaning, people learn to divide the world into categories and distinctions into our thoughts. We then tend to become almost hypnotized by these distinctions, forgetting that we created them. "The economy is falling apart," or "The people are corrupt," becomes our reality, with a seemingly independent power over us.

... As Bohm has suggested, fragmentation of thought is like a virus that has infected every field of human endeavor. Specialists in most fields cannot talk accross specialties. Marketing sees production as the problem. Managers are told to "think", while workers are told to "act". Instead of reasoning  together, people defend their "part", seeking to defeat others. If fragmentation is a condition of our times, then dialogue is one tentatively proven strategy for stepping back from the way of thinking which fragmentation produces."

Exploring thoughts and dialogue with David Bohm

David Bohm's approach is meaningful to Peter Senge's theory of dialogue - in the section concerning team learning of the Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. As stated p359 of the Fieldbook: "As Bohm conceived it, dialogue would kindle a new mode of paying attention, to perceive - as they arose in conversation - the assumptions taken for granted, the polarization of opinions, the rules for acceptable and unacceptable conversation...the group would have to learn to watch or experience its own tacit process in action. Dialogue's purpose, as we now understand it, would create a setting where conscious collective mindfulness  could be maintained." (inspired by Unfolding Meaning by David Bohm 1985)

David Bohm - on Meaning, Purpose and Exploration in Dialogue
(Extracted from a webpage - see below - where it had been edited with permission from tapes of an August, 1990 conversation)

Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue is not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them directly. It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we are ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we are talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside us and between us.
The word "dialogue" has many meanings and we are giving it a particular meaning. In this Dialogue we are not trying to make our points prevail or, if we are, we need to look at that. Our challenge is to see when each of us is trying to prevail, because if anybody prevails it means the dialogue has failed. Or, if we simply agree, the dialogue may also have failed because this means that we haven't gone deeply enough into the process or into the consciousness behind it. What begins to transform culture into something quite different is that ultimately the frustration or anger or rage or hatred that arises can lead to a crisis in which these feelings are transformed giving rise to impersonal fellowship - to thinking together and participating as if we were one body - by establishing a common consciousness. The group then becomes a kind of instrument of consciousness which can function differently.
It is essential to state the theory that this is what is possible. What I am saying is that a particular kind of dialogue is needed. But, as we talk together the question of what, if anything, its purpose is keeps arising. Sometimes we say that it should not have a purpose and sometimes we seem to say that it should. If we restrict the purpose too much it is clear we are going to be in trouble. None of the purposes is fixed because we find that as we go further into it the purpose begins to change; we discover a new purpose, and so on. So really, when we set a purpose, we set it only as a beginning, as a point of departure, not as a purpose we hold to. This is the crucial point. We may at any moment have to have a purpose, but we are not holding to that purpose. Purpose flows out of significance and value and that's what we're exploring. We expect that meaning is going to change through our learning as we go along and therefore purpose changes naturally.
In Dialogue or in our own meditation, or whatever, the attitude is one of exploration and emptiness - that is, not having fixed assumptions but rather an empty space where there is the possibility of exploring all sorts of things. This is a proposal for exploration. But even this is not final. It too has to be constantly open to exploration - seeing whether the proposal, as made, is coherent. In other words, we're not even saying exploration is the answer. The purpose is constantly changing and flowing out of the meaning.
But we can't give the meaning in a nutshell. If everybody knew the meaning, we wouldn't need the Dialogue. The dialogue is not aimed at settling anything. We explore meaning together - the creative perception of meaning - thinking together and feeling together. But meaning is active. It is not merely sitting there. The consideration of this meaning may act - or it may not. The whole point of having the Dialogue is that we're not trying to produce a result. That's very important. It may never do it. Or it may do it at some moment when we least expect it. The seed has been planted. And the meaning is naturally, spontaneously active and transformative.

http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/dialogue_exploration.html
Copyright © 1990 by Sarah Bohm
Use only with prior permission.

Dialogue, Stages and Components of a Dialogue Session

Dialogue is not merely a set of techniques for improving organisations, enhancing communications, building consensus, or solving problems. It is based on the principles that conception and implementation are intimately linked, with a core common meaning. During the dialogue process, people learn how to think together - not just in the sense of analyzing a shared problem or creating new pieces of shared knowledge, but in the sense of occupying a collective sensibility, in which the thoughts, emotions and resulting actions belong not to one individual, but to all of them together.

Stages of Dialogue

PHASE 1 (instability of the container): Invitation -> Conversation -> Deliberation ->

PHASE 2 (instability in the container): Discussion (to shake apart) or Suspension (to hang in front)

PHASE 3 (Inquiry in the container): 

Discussion leading to Skillful discussion (the flow of speech, logical analysis) vs Debate (to beat down) 

Suspension leading to Dialogue (the flow of meaning), 

PHASE 4 (Creativity in the container)

Dialogue leading to Metalogue (meaning moving with/among)

Components of a Dialogue Session (taken from a blog of the Alliance of Christian Development Agencies - see link below)

William Isaacs in the book The Fifth Discipline Field Book enumerates the basic components of a dialogue session and these are:

Invitation: The process begins with an invitation. When being invited, people are given a choice whether to accept it or reject it. Extending the invitation to dialogue opens up the space to for people to express feelings of discomfort, resistance or fear. Unlike in a monologue, dialogue cannot be forced into anyone. There has to be an agreement to partake or participate in the process. The challenge for every facilitator is to create a space where potential participants will feel safe from traditional structures of authority and hierarchy or any element that will inhibit their engagement in a dialogue.

Generative listening: This is the “art of developing deeper silences in yourself, so you can slow your mind’s hearing to your ears’ natural speed, and hear beneath the words to their meaning.” This is also perhaps, what the Psalmist refers to as “applying my heart to what I have observed.”

Observing the observer: This has to do with the developing of an environment that is “quiet” enough for people to observe their own thoughts and the team’s thoughts. Once this is achieved, dialogue now becomes possible.

Suspending assumptions: Every individual possesses a lens or a framework by which he or she interprets the world around him. In any conversation or dialogue, it is inevitable for us to bring with us these assumptions. In suspending ones’ assumptions, he or she does not lay these aside but rather, these assumptions are brought forth into the collective for them to understand, consider and weigh. One must be aware of his or her assumptions and must be willing to invite others to see a new facet in this very thing that he or she is thinking or saying.

http://www.acda.org.ph/?p=264

Team Learning: a discipline that goes far beyond team building

Team learning is not team building and should not be taken on lightly... But you can focus immediatly on your organisation's chief concerns and issues....
Abstracts written by Charlotte Roberts, taken from The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, Team Learning

The discipline of team learning goes well beyond conventional "team building" skills such as creating courteous behaviors, improving communication, becoming better able to perform everyday work tasks together, or even building strong relationships. This discipline inspires more fundamental changes, with enduring application that will ripple out through the organisation.

Team learning is also the most challenging discipline - intellectually, emotionally, socially, and spiritually. The process of learning how to learn collectively is unfamiliar. It has nothing to do with the "school learning" of memorizing details to feed back in tests. It starts with self-mastery and self-knowledge, but involves looking outward to develop knowledge of, and alignment with, others on your team. Most of us have had no training in this. This discipline will lead you there. Do you have the necessary patience with yourself and others?

Members of the team should know that there will be times of frustration and perhaps embarrassment, as they develop their collective capabilities. Ideally, they should have the opportunity to chose the practice of team learning, with no penalty if they say "no" (although this may be unrealistics if the rest of the team says "yes").

CHARACTERISTICS OF A LEARNING TEAM

For a team which practices this discipline, it is helpful to have a reason to talk and learn - a situation that compels deliberation, a need to solve a problem, the collective desire to create something new, or a drive to foster new relationship with other parts of the organisation.

This first concern will become the preliminary "practice filed" for the team's development. As it gains confidence and ability, the team will move on to consider other matters.

THE TEAM FACILITATOR

The team can develop skills faster if it has an outside facilitator who is trained in techniques for building reflection and inquiry skills, as well as dialogue facilitation. Team members of unknowingly collude to misrepresent reality to each other, and cover up the ways in which they do so......

GROUND RULES FOR LEARNING

Teams need to set up their own ground rules for conversation. These may include agreements to tell the truth as each person knows it, bring relevant information immediatly to the team, or limit the time each person can speak. Teams may decide to clarify how decisions will be made and by whom, and to establish ways to safely check and challenge each other. Once the rules are set by consensus, it is important for the team to discuss how it will deal with violations. These rules are meants to help the team shape its conversations, not as an end in themselves; and they should never become so dominant that they override the team's purposes and learnings.

When results don't turn out as expected, you and the other team members will need to master the art of forgiveness. Looking for someone to blame may mean abandoning the team's learning. Forgiveness means standing with the persons who were leading the experiment at hand, and helping the team discern what forces at play contributed to the unexpected outcomes. Forgiveness also means not holding the mistake as a trump card to be used some time in the future when politics would encourage it.

Team Learning: what does it take to act together?

Team learning. Such learning is viewed as ‘the process of aligning and developing the capacities of a team to create the results its members truly desire’ (Senge 1990: 236). It builds on personal mastery and shared vision – but these are not enough. People need to be able to act together. When teams learn together, Peter Senge suggests, not only can there be good results for the organization, members will grow more rapidly than could have occurred otherwise.

The discipline of team learning starts with ‘dialogue’, the capacity of members of a team to suspend assumptions and enter into a genuine ‘thinking together’. To the Greeks dia-logos meant a free-flowing if meaning through a group, allowing the group to discover insights not attainable individually…. [It] also involves learning how to recognize the patterns of interaction in teams that undermine learning. (Senge 1990: 10) 

The notion of dialogue that flows through The Fifth Discipline is very heavily dependent on the work of the physicist, David Bohm (where a group ‘becomes open to the flow of a larger intelligence’, and thought is approached largely as collective phenomenon). When dialogue is joined with systems thinking, Senge argues, there is the possibility of creating a language more suited for dealing with complexity, and of focusing on deep-seated structural issues and forces rather than being diverted by questions of personality and leadership style. Indeed, such is the emphasis on dialogue in his work that it could almost be put alongside systems thinking as a central feature of his approach.