Bohmian Dialogue
Presentation by Jim Murphy 
Management 2001

What Is Dialogue?
Dialogue is a frequently used word; one may even say it is an often misused word.  A recent Northern Light search on “Dialogue” got 1,720,445 hits, but most of these have little or nothing to do with Dialogue in sense that is relevant here.

Dialogue as we are referring to it can be traced the work of David Bohm, a pioneer in quantum mechanics, who, like many scientists, became interested in philosophical and social questions. Based on the etymology of the word (dia “through” and logos “speech”), he used “dialogue” to mean a different form of conversation that attempts to communicate more authentically and more deeply.

“Bohmian Dialogue” is one way to distinguish this “real dialogue” from the sense in which it is used by most people who say, “let’s have a dialogue” – which frequently means nothing more than a discussion in which people at least refrain from throwing chairs. “Dialogue with a capital D” is another way to distinguish the “deep” form of discussion.

Dialogue can be thought of as a tool that can be used in organizations or communities, as an experience that can be practiced, or as a movement that can change the world. As a tool, dialogue is best suited for opening up possibilities, promoting harmony, and improving relationships, though some would also argue for it as a means to analyze ideas or to make decisions.

For a rough definition, one might call dialogue “a conversation with rules”. This doesn’t do justice to the richness of the experience, and the idea of “rules” has drawbacks; but it does serve a rough way to explain, and perhaps even to implement, the concept.

Ed Schein has a classical discussion of Dialogue in Chapter 10 of Process Consultation Revisited. In it he says, “Dialogue makes it possible not only to create a climate for more interpersonal learning, but also may be the only way to resolve interpersonal conflict when such conflict derives from differing tacit assumptions and different semantic definitions.”

More than other comparable tools, dialogue has the power of promoting deep and lasting change. It is accordingly one of the best means to use, but it is also correspondingly more difficult to introduce and to implement.

In particular, dialogue is hard to explain or to show. The only real way to understand it is to practice it, and that takes preparation, time and commitment.

To do dialogue ones needs a group. According to Daniel Yankelovich, whose The Magic of Dialogue is probably the best introductory volume on this subject, dialogue works best with a group of six to twelve people. Others, however, have reported successful dialogue groups of as many as a hundred people.

You also need a circle. Tables should be removed from this. (For some interesting remarks about circular arrangements and some exercises that are dialogue-related, see Chapter 17, “Some Tools for Engagement” in Peter Block’s Flawless Consulting, second edition. Note that there are many related practices based on this configuration: Learning Circles, Study Circles, Talking Circles, and so on.).

To get to dialogue, a group typically needs at least six sessions of an hour in length. It is clearly better if the group stays intact during this process.

This is of course a fairly high level of commitment. But even more demanding is willingness to work on achieving the psychological states that are conducive to dialogue. 

It may be that some people cannot actually do dialogue. There certainly are preconditions without reach dialogue is unlikely to work, such as the following:

• Equality of status

• Being open to other views

• Passion for understanding

The conversation can be on a topic. Or it can be “pure”. “How are we feeling today?” or “Who has an experience that they wish to relate?” can be openers to dialogue.

The “rules” for dialogue perhaps can better be considered as “guides” – principles to follow in order to make it work. Each group should develop its own guides, but some common examples are as follows:

• Identify the assumptions behind what you say.

• Balance inquiry and advocacy.

• Release the need for specific outcomes.

A group may want initially to devote one meeting to emphasizing a particular guide. Once the group has adopted guides, it can be helpful to have them posted on the wall.

To aid the thought process that makes dialogue work, some groups use techniques. The idea is that an arbitrary or artificial device can promote the twofold nature of the thought process behind dialogue – concentrating not just on what is being said but on how it being said. Some typical such techniques are as follows:

• Using a talking stick

• Requiring each speaker to paraphrase the preceding speaker

• Mandatory use of “I” statements

Because most of our communication is so non-dialogic and because many of our modes of thought are so different that those practiced in dialogue, dialogue may not come naturally to many participants. Frequently, this is another instance where “unlearning” of the usual conversational methods has to occur before learning and being comfortable with dialogic methods is attained.

The role of facilitation in dialogue is important – and controversial. In the beginning of a group, a facilitator is clearly helpful and the dialogue session can even be modified for training purposes.

One method is for the facilitator to call a time out when a “teaching moment” seems applicable, such as a when an egregious failure to follow the guides has occurred. It is not recommended that such interruptions be made any more than a few times in an hour, however.

Another idea is to have, say, forty-five minutes for the dialogue and then to do another fifteen minutes to analyze how dialogic the conversation was. Although the idea of measuring dialogue would make many of its practitioners blanch, there are (purported) such mechanism for this purposes; these involve such considerations as the percentage of questioning rather than declaratory sentences, the connectedness of utterances, the number of agreements (vs. disagreements) stated, etc.

There are many problems that dialogue groups are likely to face, and a facilitator can be very helpful in getting them through such “dark nights”. Typical difficulties that may be encountered include the following:

• Silence may make people uncomfortable.

• There may be a sense that “it isn’t getting anywhere”.

• Some people may talk too long or too often.

On the whole, dialogue is best suited to a “light” facilitation style. It is generally good practice for the facilitator not to participate in the discussion; indeed, the more silent the facilitator is, the better the dialogue is probably going.

With practice, a dialogue group can become self-facilitating. But self-facilitation is difficult in any context.

How do you know when your group has reached dialogue? In the words of Tank McNamara, you “just know”. Sometimes there is a perceptible flow experience; sometimes there is feeling (a state called metalogue) in which everyone perceives a kind of unity among differences.

One advance occurs when the group becomes comfortable with being open with one another. Another stage is reached when dialogue ceases to feel artificial and its rewards are easily felt. Eventually, a group can come together and, like a practiced athletic team, just “get into it”.

What does dialogue accomplish? Positive effects at the individual, group and organizational levels can be cited, including these:

• Better understanding of diverse viewpoints

• Improved judgment

• Deeper listening skills

• Increased ability to recognize assumptions

• Greater teamwork and team learning

• Stronger interpersonal relations

Comments from Dialogue Session Participants
Discussion vs. Dialogue
Internet Resources on Dialogue
Suggested Reading List

Back to Process Consultation II