December 14, 2010
As I write a new newsletter (that should be mailed out and posted by the first of January) I realized that one of the tools that is most useful is that of Dialogue. Rather than recreate a new piece on that, I decided to post a chapter from my first book (that is out of print) “The Best of the Human Side.” Here it is:
Dialogue
Listen…
I do not know if you have ever examined how you listen,
it doesn’t matter to what
whether to a bird,
to the wind in the leaves,
to the rushing waters,
or how you listen in a dialogue with yourself…
If we try to listen we find it extraordinarily difficult,
because we are always projecting our opinions and ideas,
our prejudices, our background, our inclinations, our impulses;
when they dominate we hardly listen to what is being said.
In that state there is no value at all.
One listens and therefore one learns,
only in a state of attention, a state of silence
in which this whole background is in abeyance, is quiet;
then, it seems to me
it is possible to communication.1
I have found that one of the most prevailing concerns about communication is how to constructively resolve conflict. Most people will tell you that they hate conflict; many of us avoid it. Yet conflict is merely a difference of opinion. There are few relationships without differences. Thus our ability to understand these differences and how they are formed is key to our ability to have healthy relationships. The art of dialogue is one of the most useful practices I have found to help us understand the nature of our differences and a practical approach to resolving them.
In my most recent efforts to gain new understandings of teamwork and organizational effectiveness, I have been studying the concept and methodology of “dialogue.” This section shares some preliminary thoughts with you. Personally, I am striving to create opportunities for true dialogue; and professionally I hope to assist my clients in their ability to establish dialogue in their organizations.
“Given the nature of global and institutional problems, thinking alone at whatever level of leadership is no longer adequate. The problems are too complex, the interdependencies too intricate, and the consequences of isolation and fragmentation too devastating. Human beings everywhere are being forced to develop their capacity to think together – to develop collaborative thought and coordinated action.”1
As Isaacs points out, the increasing complexity of the world means that we are becoming more dependent upon each other to address or solve problems. Our capacity to join forces and come u with synergistic approaches will perhaps be the most important factor for success – or even survival. To me the heart of this is the ability to be truly “on the same wavelength” with others who offer a variety of perspectives, experiences and attitudes. We need to communicate in such a way as to establish genuine openness, real understanding and shared assumptions. In other words, to have a dialogue.
The Greek roots of “dialogue,” dia and logos, connote “meaning flowing through.” So a true dialogue is a form of communication that yields a shared meaning. As we communicate our own perspectives and, more specifically, our own assumptions, we create a pool of shared information. For example, imagine a circle of people looking at an octagonal container in the middle of the circle. The octagon is fully perceived only as each member of a dialogue shares his/her view of the container. Since each sees only one or two sides of the container, it is not fully comprehended until all of their views are collected. Once all the views are shared, a common picture is formed of the container and the meaning can be understood.
I am reminded of the Indian story about the six blind men touching an elephant. Each feels a different part of the elephant and describe the elephant from their own point of view: “The elephant is flat and thin and has stiff little hairs on one side,” said the blind man touching the elephant’s ear.
“No,” argues another blind man, who was feeling the elephant’s leg, “the elephant is tall and cylindrical and I can almost get my arms around him, like a moving tree trunk,” and so on. Each man had an incomplete and erroneous picture of the elephant. If they had collected their observations, their experience and the assumptions underlying their conclusions, they might have come up with a shared and more complete view of the elephant.
“Listening with my heart I find meaning.
For just as the eye perceives light and the ear sound,
the heart is the organ for meaning.”
The process of dialogue requires that we listen with our hearts as well as with our ears and heads. We must be open to differing perspectives, rather than judgmental. The more certain I am, the more difficult it is to explore meaning. Dialogue can only occur in a safe environment where people feel comfortable questioning their own conclusions, exploring their own assumptions and openly listening to potentially diametrically differing views. The challenge for most of us is to allow multiple points of view to be held in the conversation and still stay connected: living with paradox.
The process of dialogue starts within ourselves. In order to be open to develop shared assumptions, we must be aware of the assumptions underlying our own conclusions. Thus the first step is to uncover our own assumptions. This is generally referred to as “listening to the listener,” understanding our own mental models and/or determining the steps we took to come to a conclusion. The second step is to question the assumption and allow that it may not be valid. My assumption is that, in order to effect a dialogue, I must stay in a position of inquiring, rather than knowing.
I wrote the following poem to help me to remember this goal:
Stillness in me.
Hard to capture.
Breath-ful
quiets the chatter.
Sharing what comes through that breath
is what’s important.
It’s new; it’s me.
It’s focused
Where it should be.
Sharing our own assumptions, then, becomes the next step in creating the dialogue. Much like a stew we might cook together in the kitchen, we have placed the onions in the pot and now await someone else to add the meat. With each assumption placed in the “pot” we come close to understanding what might be the complete picture or “stew.” As long as we don’t feel that our assumptions are ourselves (i.e., that we do not become overly attached to them and thereby defensive), we may shift our perspective and arrive at shared assumptions. Like the stew which is more than and very different from the individual ingredients, our shared assumptions can become a new view that may be a novel solution and/or a basis for shared commitment and action.
“Dialogue’s purpose is to create a setting where conscious collective mindfulness can be maintained.”1
Although it may seem patently obvious that having a dialogue would be advantageous, it is important to understand its potential. As people learn to communicate in this manner, the quality of the conversation improves, creative solutions arise and commitment to common plans increases the probability of successful action.
My interest in dialogue arises from my work with highly conflicted situations in business teams, family businesses, etc. I have found that people can become motivated to resolve conflicts if I help them to determine a common mission and to understand that they are interdependent. If we move into a safe environment where people can reflect on and question the assumptions upon which they have based conclusions about one another, then openness and conflict resolution can occur. My own experience has been mirrored by those doing more extensive work with dialogue. For instance, seemingly intractable labor-management disputes have been resolved through a dialogue process. Major progress in addressing a community’s health delivery problems has occurred through the dialogue process. In Colorado, a community pooled the perspectives of hospital administrators, community activists, consumers, and county health officers to begin exploring their assumptions about healthcare delivery. The dialogue process allowed them to let go of traditional adversarial positions and find a shared set of assumptions which guide further planning and improvements. It is possible to move quickly to a sense of community utilizing the dialogue process.
My sense of dialogue as an emerging communication technology suggests that it may be a very subtle and powerful tool through which we can foster understanding, harmony and creativity. It certainly warrants more study and well, dialogue!1
