Putting Something in the Middle: An Approach to Dialogue

Abstract

© 2001 by the Society for Organizational Learning and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Conversation is conducted atop layers of meaning. How we understand each other depends quite a bit on what’s underneath the conversation because the basis of what we hear and say lies in inferences, assumptions, values, feelings, and information. For example, people talking about trends in the financial markets need to have some basic understanding in common for the conversation to go anywhere. Often, that shared understanding is adequate. But if the topic is saving for retirement and the conversation is between two people, one of whom is financial adviser to the other, then something close to dialogue needs to occur. That is, the parties in the conversation need to deliberately dig down into the layers of meaning and mutually examine things like personal values, assumptions about the future, and income data. The process of digging includes the possibility that substratum meanings will be discovered or clarified in the course of the dialogue, and that something new might be created (for example, new career goals). Obviously, in this example, the technical methods of the financial adviser will help guide the conversation, but the danger in not having a dialogue is that actions will be based on fundamental misunderstandings or that a narrow set of options will be entertained. Dialogue at its best is a way of creating profound levels of shared meaning in a group so that the wisest courses of action can emerge. We view dialogue as a desirable component of leadership, especially in the face of adaptive challenges within our increasingly networked society (Heifetz, 1994). In shaping practice to needs, as sponsored by the Center for Creative Leadership, we have taken guidance from the work of David Bohm (1990), William Isaacs and Peter Senge (1994), Chris Argyris (1993), and Nancy Dixon (1996). Along with our colleagues and clients, we have experienced great rewards in taking part in dialogue in organizations, typically in service of leadership development initiatives. Yet we have found (and these authors acknowledge) that learning dialogue and practicing it effectively can be difficult. In this article, we discuss some of the reasons for this and offer an approach that we have begun to test that addresses some of the difficulties. We call this mediated dialogue. A critical aspect of dialogue is what Bohm calls suspending assumptions: “You literally suspend them in front of the group so that the entire team can understand them collectively” (Isaacs, 1994: p. 378). The term assumptions is to be taken in its broad sense as the underlying basis for what one thinks and feels—the layers of meaning underneath the conversation. For example, Chris Argyris describes these layers as a sequence, a chain of reasoning toward increasing abstraction, which he calls the ladder of inference. The ladder starts at the bottom rung with data and objective events, then on the next higher rung is selected particulars from such data, followed by ascribed meaning, more generalized assumptions, conclusions, and finally adopted beliefs. According to William Isaacs, suspending assumptions consists of three roughly sequential activities. The first he calls surfacing, or becoming aware of one’s assumptions. Another is display, lifting assumptions in front of the group, so all, including the holder, can perceive them. Inquiry is the shared exploration and reconstruction of the accumulated knowledge held in the middle of the group. Charles J. Palus Research Scientist Center for Creative Leadership palusc@leaders.ccl.org