Dialogos

Dialogos International, LLC is a world leader and pioneer in developing dialogue and organizational learning practices. Our principals include originators and co-developers of many pivotal techniques, including organizational learning, dialogue, and dialogic process consultation, that have been influential in business and consulting practice. We conduct, produce and publish research related to dialogue, sustainability, and organizational learning. And we draw upon the growing body of theory and practice that has developed during the past 50 years as researchers have studied the nature and impact of the modern organization.

Print Version (PDF)

Organizations as Living Systems

The work of Dialogos incorporates several different threads of systems-related theory and methodology:

System Dynamics is a body of knowledge about of systems modeling and intervention, developed originally by Jay Forrester at MIT (Forrester, 1960-1971; Richardson, 1999; Kleiner, 1996).

Structural Dynamics is an outgrowth of family systems theory applied to organizational contexts (Kantor, 1994 and 1999).

Dialogic Systems Theory is a set of insights about group interrelationships, derived in part from the “dialogue” theories of David Bohm, and expanded to organizational and leadership contexts by William Isaacs (Isaacs, 1999).

Central to all of these threads of work is the concept of all human groups (including formal organizations and corporations) as “living systems:” as adaptive and unpredictable as the people who comprise them. The Dialogos work succeeds because it takes into account (and embodies in its change initiatives) the primary characteristics of living organizations:

Participation: Everyone in a group of people both influences and reflects the thinking and interaction of the whole. Powerful patterns of influence resonate throughout the organization, not merely up and down the hierarchy. For this reason, we design our initiatives to “get all the voices in the room:” to make sure people know that their perspective is heard, and that all perspectives are comprehended by the decision-makers.

Coherence: Living systems evolve to meet the challenges and constraints in their environment. Thus, in organizations, there is always a reason why some situation has evolved the way it did. This principle compels us to come to a clear-sighted understanding of why things look and work as they do. It also sets the stage to enable us to work with circumstances as they are, and not from illusions we might project about how things should or could be.

Unfolding Potential: When living systems are young, they often have a different physical form than when they are mature. An acorn doesn’t resemble an oak tree. But the form of the oak tree is ready to unfold from the acorn. Similarly, living organizations have a distinct potential form and purpose that continues to evolve as the organization grows. Applying this principles entails discerning not only what is possible, given the current reality, but the deep potential carried in the situation, even if it is not fully yet grasped or realizable by people in the system.

Awareness: An amoeba will move away from salt water; a Mercedes will stay and rust. Living systems are characterized by awareness of their environments and themselves. A system’s capacity to be aware of what it is doing as it is doing it is a very high-leverage change avenue. This principle suggests that the most effective way to intervene in organizations is to increase their capacity to detect and correct errors. The quality of reflection that a system has about itself directly influences its capacity for taking generative action.

The Dynamics of Effective Intervention

Derived from these principles is a theory of the complex nature of interventions, in which several different dimensions of activity are all interrelated:

Tone (or “space” or “atmosphere”): Any human interaction takes place in an intangible but very real environment, which limits the kinds of moves that are possible. A room where there has been a vicious argument “feels different” than a room where people trust each other and can speak candidly without fear — precisely because the tone is different. The tone or space of an environment can be shaped and influenced in a variety of ways; this in turn influences the quality and direction of human action.

Thinking (or “mental models”): The habitual attitudes and beliefs-in-use of most people consist of the theories and stories that they tell themselves about the world and the way it works. If they can open themselves to consider alternative views of “how things ought to be” and “what we are doing here,” they become capable of realizing many more possible forms of action.

Structure: Every system is influenced by the patterns of interrelationships and mutual influence among the factors and forces within it. For example, reward systems influence the choices people make; which influence the profitability of an enterprise; which in turn influence the quality and size of the rewards. Similarly, the makeup of the “Core Group” — the people whom decision-makers perceive to be important — is an important structure in organizations (Kleiner, 2003). Mapping the various structures of a system is often a good first step to becoming aware of high-leverage interventions.

Patterns: Events that recur over time give rise to patterns of behavior in a system. For example: Receipts may be oscillating. Job satisfaction may be falling. The number of innovations may grow at first but then level off and decline. These are symptoms of the underlying structures of the system; interveners can use their awareness of patterns to diagnose the situation and generate a proactive response.

Action (or “events”): The chosen steps and moves that people make to achieve their goals. Interveners often try to change organizations by taking new actions, which may or may not be sustained in the organization over time. Often, the effectiveness of actions depends on whether the actions reinforce, or contradict, the existing space, structure, and thinking of the system.

Dialogic Process Consultation (learning laboratories)

Though our work draws on the thread of action learning that stretches back to John Dewey through the work of Kurt Lewin, Chris Argyris, and Edgar Schein (Kleiner, 1996; Kolb, 1984; Argyris, 1985, Schein, 1965), the dialogic approach we use goes beyond participatory action research and action learning. In dialogic process consultation (Schein, 1998), the following principles apply:

Interventions are jointly designed with participants (who are no longer kept apart as “objects” of the intervention);

Time for joint reflection with participants is built in, both for evaluation and to develop their capabilities to make use of the actions so far;

We take part in joint theory-building with participants, helping them to derive a meaningful model (in mind) of the situation. At the MIT Center for Organizational Learning, Dialogos principal William Isaacs pioneered the concept of a learning lab (or “practice field,”) in which participants explore practical issues in a reflective space where they can learn by observing their own actions or those of others, and then building shared models of the impact of those actions.

Dialogue: Collective Thought

The work of Dialogos is based on keen awareness of the nature of reflective thought (Isaacs, 1999; Isaacs, 1993; Isaacs, 1994a-b). Dialogos principals include some of the world’s leading experts in the design and facilitation of generative conversation conversation that fosters awareness and capability in the service of genuine aspiration. In this sort of facilitation we pay close attention to the quality of the “container:” the conversational environment. For example, it is possible to deliberately engender a “high-quality container:” an environment where dangerous perceptions and undiscussable topics can be raised productively, without making people vulnerable.

Four qualities are significant in the design of dialogue. These can be simply stated as:

Voice: Creating a place for all relevant perspectives and attitudes to be spoken so that they may be heard.

Listening: Attention to the spoken and unspoken nature of the conversation and the “acoustics” of the space in the room.

Respect: Acknowledgement of the value of differences and participants’ identities.

Suspension: Willingness to raise and consider assumptions and perceptions without being bound by them.

The Five Disciplines of the Learning Organization

Our work also draws upon the five organizational learning disciplines. Popularized by Peter Senge, the five “learning disciplines” have formed the basis of a growing practice for individual, team and organizational development (Senge, 1990 and Senge, et al, 1994, 1999 and 2000). The underlying premise is that “real-world” results are more effectively achieved, especially when flexibility is needed, by galvanizing authentic human commitment. Senge suggests five forms of ongoing practice:

Personal Mastery: Articulating individual aspiration while fostering keener awareness of existing challenges;

Mental Models: Uncovering the “theories in use” and mindsets that govern behavior;

Shared Vision: Designing processes that elicit the common aspirations that can spark extraordinary behavior;

Team Learning: Learning to transcend barriers and reach beyond agreement to genuine alignment and effectiveness in teams; and

Systems Thinking: Learning to see recurring interrelationships in complex environments and thus intervene more effectively, drawing on intellectual traditions such as those of system dynamics.

Several Dialogos principals and associates are longstanding professional colleagues with Dr. Senge and have contributed to his books: William Isaacs, Robert Hanig, Glennifer Gillespie and Art Kleiner. Skillful practice of the five learning disciplines has long been a backdrop to the work of Dialogos.

Emerging Organizational Research and Practice

As a meeting ground for theoretically-oriented practitioners in organizational learning, design and intervention work, Dialogos is becoming a center for new work in the field. Among the works in progress by Dialogos associates are:

Collective Leadership by William Isaacs

The Heart of Profound Change: Learning from the Civil Rights Movement by Leslie F. (Skip) Griffin

References

Argyris, Chris, 1993: Knowledge for Action (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).
Bohm, David, 1992: Thought as a System (London: Routledge).
Bohm, David, 1996: Wholeness and the Implicate Order (London: Routledge).
Forrester, Jay, 1961, Industrial Dynamics (MIT Press, Productivity Press).
Forrester, Jay, 1969, Urban Dynamics (MIT Press, Productivity Press).
Forrester, Jay, 1971, "The Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems,"; Technology Review, January 1971, p. 52-68.
Hanig, Robert, Andreas Priestland, Dominic Emery, and Art Kleiner, 2002: "First Level Leaders: Engagement and Design Story" (Cambridge, MA: Dialogos Working Paper and London: BP Report).
Isaacs, William, 1993: "Taking Flight: Dialogue, Collective Thinking, and Organizational Learning," Organizational Dynamic us, vol. 22, 1993, p. 24-39.
Isaacs, William, 1994a: "Dialogue" and "Designing a Dialogue Session" in Peter Senge, et al., The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook (New York: Doubleday).
Isaacs, William, 1994b: "Dialogue: The Power of Collective Thinking," Reflections on Creating Learning Organizations, ed. by Kellie T. Wardman (1994, Pegasus Communications).
Isaacs, William, 1999: Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together (New York: Doubleday).
Kantor, David and Nancy Heaton Lonstein, 1994, "Reframing Team Relationships," in Senge et al, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook (New York, Doubleday), p. 407.
Kantor, David and Steven Ober, 1999, "Heroic Modes," in Senge et al, The Dance of Change (New York, Doubleday), p. 263.
Kleiner, Art, 1996: The Age of Heretics (New York: Doubleday).
Kleiner, Art, 2003: Who Really Matters: The Core Group Theory of Power, Privilege, and Success (New York: Doubleday).
Kolb, David, 1984: Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Richardson, George P., 1999: Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory (Cambridge, MA: Pegasus Communications).
Schein, Edgar, 1998: Process Consultation, Volume II (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
Schein, Edgar, 1965: Process Consultation: Lessons for Managers and Consultants, Vol. II (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
Senge, Peter, 1990: The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New York: Doubleday).
Senge, Peter, and Art Kleiner, Charlotte Roberts, Rick Ross, Bryan Smith, and George Roth, 1999: The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations (New York: Doubleday).
Senge, Peter, and Charlotte Roberts, Rick Ross, Bryan Smith, and Art Kleiner, 1994: The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building A Learning Organization (New York: Doubleday).
Senge, Peter, and Nelda Cambron-McCabe, Tim Lucas, Bryan Smith, Art Kleiner, and Janis Dutton, 2000: Schools That Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares About Education (New York: Doubleday).