The nature of our conversations determines the quality of the ideas we share. That’s as true within circles of friends as it’s true within workplace meeting rooms. It’s especially true within the democratic public square. Therefore, it’s worth reflecting on the ways that we talk to each other. What are the conversational dynamics? How is understanding conveyed? How are claims scrutinised? How are disputes resolved? How can evasiveness, underhanded ploys, and triteness be avoided? I’d like to offer some humble responses to such questions in a series of information graphics. You will find the first graphic in the series below. It’s about the conversation format called dialogue.

This information graphic stands on its own as a self-contained document. Feel free to pass along copies. For those interested in the background and application of the information graphic, I’ve added a few comments below the cut-line.

Why an information graphic? One reason why I like to create information graphics is that I’m able to convey a lot of ideas in a tidy space. I anticipate some criticism. Yes, the graphic is mildly polemical. Yes, some nuances and qualifications are lost with diagrams when compared with a long-form format, such as an essay. The prose is very tight, some might say as tight as a pair of Speedos that are a few sizes too small. Fair enough. But, but … viewing an information graphic can be more of an act of perusal and reflection than a passive reading experience. These graphics are easier to reference later on, especially poster-sized graphics (like this one) which can be hung on a wall. Info-graphics also generate interest when shown to colleagues with short attention spans. It doesn’t seem like a burdensome read.

I have selfish reasons too. This graphic provides me with a hand-out for the teachers and facilitators I work with. I have a very specific take on the subject of dialogue. My take is influenced by the Manhattan Project physicist David Bohm, who articulated his views on dialogue late in life. I’m more heavily influenced by some of Bohm’s followers, specifically the psychologist David Kantor and organisational psychology theorist William Isaacs. With these influences noted, I should say that my views on dialogue contain a lot of ideas accumulated over a decade of studying the subject. Even though all of those ideas aren’t in the graphic, the graphic provides me with the starting point for discussion. It is very much about the basic character of dialogue.

In case you’re wondering, the graphic is an implicit critique of those devotees of dialogue who view the conversation format as a New Age, touchy-feely, apolitical cure-all. I’m thinking of C. Otto Scharmer’s book Theory U (2007) as an obvious example. If you’ve also read Scharmer et al.’s Presence (2004), you’ll know Theory U was born out of a ridiculous and naïve stereotype of Eastern spiritualism. There’s no place for creative conflict … no consideration of conflicts of interest … no role for empirical scrutiny. Scharmer’s spiritualist egalitarianism wallows in the agreeability illusion, the notion that all conflicts merely reflect differences in mutual understanding that can be overcome with heartfelt conversation, the abandonment of personal hang-ups, and the “opening of the mind” (read: indoctrination). Unfortunately, this goofy spiritualism is seeping into practical guidebooks about dialogue in the workplace.

I gave my copy of Presence to a dialogue facilitator who has people participate in armchair yoga before the conversation. I cringe as I recall her chanting: “Now everyone relax your buttocks muscles … now everyone relax your forehead muscles … now everyone relax your hair follicles …” I must have defective chi because I just don’t get it. No one else thought that the yoga helped the conversation either. [1]

If you happen to be a facilitator, the information graphic has a number of practical implications. First, preparing for a dialogue session involves creating a “safe space”. This doesn’t just relate to the physical space and ground rules, but also includes being mindful of the socio-political context in which the dialogue takes place. Second, when selecting exercises and setting initial goals, there are a few “balancing acts” that need to be considered. Third, if the dialogue isn’t flowing smoothly, then the facilitator should ask herself if a role is missing. If so, then the facilitator can step into that role. For example, if everyone is uncritically building on the contributions of one person (a mover), then the facilitator can act as an opposer to encourage the group to consider an alternative opinion. Or if the thrust’n'parry of argumentation is causing everyone to get bogged down in unimportant details, then the facilitator can take on the role of bystander and try to reorient the discussion.

Dialogue doesn’t suit every purpose. That’s why this series of information graphics is about different conversational formats. The next one will be about debate.

By Peter Stoyko

NOTES

[1] As an aside, the Society for Organizational Learning was a real hotbed of Cambridge (MA) intellect in the 1990s, including the work of William Isaacs. Recent publications such as Theory U, plus my experience in a completely unsubstantial workshop led by founder Peter Senge, are causing me to think that the Society is a spent force. Pity.

REFERENCES