The missing dialogue

Just before I turned off my Blackberry at the beginning of my flight to New York last week I picked up a message from my friend Len Williamson about an article he is planning to write.  It’s called The Missing Dialogue.  I reply and ask him, can I share his thoughts on my blog?  I’m pleased to pick up his yes as I land at Heathrow on my return.

Len points to the work of a number of thinkers in this field – David Bohm, Bill Isaacs, Daniel Yankevich – and highlights the phrase from JMW (Len, who is JMW?) – “all that is ever needed is a conversation”.  He also notes how easy it is to fail to have those conversations we most need to have.  On a teleconference with clients he hears three missing dialogues being played out and reflects on the pain and expense of failing to hold the dialogue.

In his brief sketch for his article Len writes:


The missing dialogue is the one that has the most potential to reduce stress in your life, move you towards meeting your goals and help you to fulfil your potential.  Everyone has at least three missing dialogues and most have many more.  The three you will have will be at least one at home with your partner, one or more at work with your colleagues and at least one at play with your friends.  The dialogue is missing because you avoid it.  You avoid it to protect yourself and others from the assumed consequences of having the dialogue.  Paradoxically, this avoidance creates stress for you as you do not follow the path you want to take.  It also holds you back from progress towards your goals and it limits your potential.  This paper shows it is possible to have these missing dialogues in a way that does not lead to all the fears you have about the consequences of doing so.

This is a rich topic.  I agree that all sorts of people fear the possible outcomes from conversations and I notice how this keeps people from dialoguing with themselves – let alone each with other.  I notice how much people lack skills in this area and how, even when people have skills and choose to open up the dialogue, this offers no guarantee of a constructive response.  In my own life I increasingly put out the invitation even when I believe there will be unwillingness or lack of skill on the part of my partner in dialogue:  whatever the response I know more as a result of opening the dialogue than I did before.

One dialogue that is often missing in key relationships in the workplace and elsewhere is this:  how shall we dialogue with each other?  As a regular reader you already know how much store I lay by establishing ground rules for dialogue in a wide range of conversations.  Sometimes these are ground rules I follow myself and which help me to stay centred and on track in the most difficult of conversations.  In some relationships I have agreement to a shared set of rules – amongst fellow practitioners of Nonviolent Communication, of Neuro-Linguistic Programming and of the Skilled Facilitator Approach (and because I’ve written about all three on this blog I have created links to the library of postings in each area).

I wonder, what are the missing dialogues in your life at present?  I encourage you to take time to identify and reflect on them and, if you feel bold enough, to share one or two of them here.  I also wonder what this subject evokes for you and what more you’re interested to know.  Please leave your comments as a way of supporting Len in writing his article.

2 thoughts on “The missing dialogue

  1. I feel honoured to be part of your blog Dorothy. As I develop this work I am finding it important to articulate what dialogue is and distinguish it from other forms of interaction. Some helpful distinctions that arise so far are

    Fragmentation – this is what we do as human beings. We break the whole world up in to manageable parts and grab the fragment we believe to be most important. From this fragment we then say what the problem is and apply all our resources to solving this problem. The insight is we only chose a small fragment of the whole and it may not be the problem. Explore the whole with others and it can take you to a better place.

    Interaction through speech – There are several levels to interaction. We can 'talk' in to the world and get something from this for ourselves even if nobody hears us. We can 'converse' which is exchanging information and may or may not shift our respective positions. We can 'discuss' which is a trade between us. Each of us is seeking to get the other to understand their point and both will negotiate and trade positions in an attempt to win the discussion. Dialogue is the highest level. From Dia and Logos in Greek the word dialogue is about sharing meaning. It is about suspending our own views and making effort to create a shared understanding. It is different from the win lose of discussion in that everyone wins if and only if someone wins.

    Dialogue requires courage and will put something at risk. However, the benefits of a true dialogue will take you to a better world for you if you can be brave.

    This is the work so far and I welcome and thoughts this evokes for you. By the way JMW are a leadership development organisation and I had the pleasure of participating in one of their programmes a few years ago.

    Len

  2. Hi Len

    Thanks for posting – and offering so much more than simply the answer to my JMW question.

    I recognise so much of what you say – especially the way dialogue puts something at risk and requires courage. The truth is that we cannot know what we are risking until we enter into dialogue. The things we believe are at risk (often the relationship in which the dialogue takes place or some idea of ourselves) may or may not be. And we may also risk something without even knowing it.

    Thank you for your thoughts.

    Dorothy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *