My experience in dialogue sessions mirrors Margie's--there are many
different styles and approaches for making interventions. Even within the
group of facilitators working with Dialogos there are differences in
styles. Juanita Brown's "strategic dialogue" is a good description of
some of the techniques used by Dialogos' facilitators.
NOTE: Juanita has a *great* piece on Strategic Dialogue in a new book (see
the chapter by Juanita and Sherrin Bennett, "Learning Organizations:
Developing Cultures for Tomorrow's Workplace", edited by Sarita Chawla and
John Renesch, from New Leaders Press--order from Sarita 415/ 924-8327 or
any of the authors).
Dialogos' facilitators all go through the Foundations for Dialogue program
and on-going core development programs. They initiate all new dialogue
projects with some education and skill development in dialogue theory and
techniques, and then use a number of exercises throughout the dialogue
sessions as well as long periods for open dialogue in their sessions with
clients. Although some dialogue practitioners may think of this approach
as instrumental, from what I have seen, it takes the group much faster
along the path to practicing dialogue and learning from it.
As for interventions, they seem to range quite a bit. Some people make
occasional Tavistock-style interpretations of group process (like, "The
group appears to be avoiding the gender issues involved here") and never
get involved in the content of the conversation. More often, facilitators
role-model the principles and practices of dialogue by asking questions
(of individuals or the group at large) to get at the heart of the issue or
bring the conversation back on track. They might ask someone to "come down
the Ladder of Inference and tell us about the data or the thinking behind
your assertion."
There's a widely held belief among facilitators that "The wisdom is in the
group" and it's much more powerful and valuable for the group to come to
the wisdom themselves than for facilitators to try to deliver it. This
belief leads alot of facilitators to keep their mouths shut and NOT
intervene in the conversation very much. (This is one of the hardest
things I've ever done--coming from traditional management consulting where
you were supposed to give the answers to the client...) Of course, then
the group ends up thinking you haven't done anything to earn your fee... a
dilemma the consultant must hold!
At some point, it is also really important for the facilitator to step
back and allow the participants to develop their own capabilities and
sense of responsibility for managing the group process themselves. I've
seen some amazing examples of this in the cases Margie mentions with
monologuers and no time for reflection and lack of inquiry. After a
while, participants tend to give each other significant time to speak
without interruption, and maintain a bit of space between comments
(sometimes it seems painfully slow and quiet!). Even in talking about
conflictual, heated issues, people will slow to listen, reflect, and
inquire into the other's thinking.
The challenge for the facilitator is when the group slips out of the
dialogue mode back into discussion. This is probably one of the things
talked about most in facilitator de-briefing sessions--how to manage the
intensity and depth of feeling that drives people back into defensive
routines? One approach is to shift the conversation from the actual to
the abstract--to do some kind of role-play and assign people other roles
to play, or do a double-column exercise in writing, or something other
than continuing the conversation in the old modes.
The other challenge for facilitation is that there are always a few people
who either will not or can not work within the principles of dialogue. One
or two people will be so frustrated by the "lack of action" and slow pace
of the dialogue that they stay in advocacy, do not reflect on their
assumptions, and often do things that actively subvert the process in the
group. This is another dilemma for the facilitators, which can only be
left to the group.
The frustration that people (participants and facilitators) feel at the
discrepancy between espousals and actual behavior seems to be another
dilemma. I have to remind myself that one of the principles we hold is to
allow people to be different and to respect the differences--the idea that
"Every person is doing the best he or she can given their background and
the current context." Some people cannot or do not want to be dialogical,
and that has to be okay, too...
Enough for today.
-- Diane Weston DMWeston@aol.com