Dialogue Instead of Debate
Many meetings turn into debates where each person tries to persuade the other into his way of viewing things. Debates drain creativity and lead to resentment and grievances among members.
Quantum physicist David Bohm wrote extensively about how our minds are fragmented and how fragmentation leads to perceptual distortion. Our perception, filtered and tainted by limiting beliefs, distorted memories and experiences often shows us an inaccurate view of reality.
In an effort to better understand ourselves and move toward wholeness, Bohm introduced the idea of dialogue. Engaging in an open discussion, group members suspend their assumptions and normal reactions to a diverse range of ideas. The objective of a dialogue is to find shared meaning among group members.
No one tries to win in a dialogue. The spirit of a dialogue is radically different than most meetings and group discussions. A dialogue is not a game; no one tries to gain points. In dialogue, there is common participation where either the entire group benefits or no one does.
Bohm’s style of dialogue might seem impractical to businesses at first glance. Bohm explains, “In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what to do about anything … Our purpose is really to communicate coherently in truth, if you want to call that a purpose.”
Bohm isn’t suggesting, however, that every group gathering should be a dialogue. He offers dialogue as a more effective means of tackling big problems.
Leadership teams comprised of sophisticated creative professionals will benefit from scheduled dialogues. Without hidden personal agendas, dialogues can produce a free exchange of ideas that lead to more holistic thinking, higher levels of creativity and more meaningful discussions.
(I highly recommend reading Bohm’s On Dialogue. It’s a little book packed with powerful perspectives.)
Related posts:
Trackbacks & Pingbacks