I missed the original post - LO12244 -->Ian Yeoman asks >Q. What are the
major limitations / problems with a dialogue approach?
Below is the appendix to the case study 'SELF-ORGANISING FOR SUCCESS:
CREATING A LEARNING CULTURE' from the Learning from Complexity Pack [ask
me for more details if you're interested]. To quote our blurb "The case
study examines the application of teamwork communication techniques to
service improvement in a large Metropolitan authority. The 'dialogue'
approach used here is based on the systems thinking of Peter Senge coupled
with ideas from the emerging sciences of complexity. "
The appendix looks at disadvantages of several methods including dialogue
[in a tongue in cheek kind of a way.] Hope it's relevant.
Best wishes
Arthur Battram
-----
APPENDIX: THE RISKS
HOW DIALOGUE DIFFERS FROM OTHER IMPROVEMENT METHODOLOGIES
Many managers, when exposed to the idea of dialogue, just don't 'get it'.
With this in mind, this appendix details some of the risks involved in
using various improvement methodologies, pointing out key differences
between them and the dialogue approach.
"I would take the stance with critics that yes, dialogue can be seen as
'just the same as a service review', if that's all you want to hear; but
reality is not 'either/or', it is more often 'this and that', which means
that both views can be true (it's an AND not a BUT. ) Dialogue doesn't
exclude any other method. You don't have to do everything 'the dialogue
way'. Dialogue can enhance many other processes.
I've also heard it said 'well, it's just best practice', as if that
allowed it to be agreed with and discarded on the grounds that 'we don't
live in an ideal world where we can afford best practice'.
The dialogue approach isn't 'best practice'; it is 'better practice'.
Compared to the reality of everyday practice it is better practice. If I
claimed it was best practice, it would be out of date and no longer best
practice by the time this book was printed. Dialogue can only ever be
better practice, because it is about exploring possibilities and listening
to other people in a constantly changing environment." Steve Trivett
THE RISKS OF FOCUS GROUPS
Focus groups may:
fail to access the beliefs and assumptions that underlie 'the facts'
because the atmosphere is one of giving opinions, not exploring perceptions
offer little chance to update those assumptions after reflection of
different perspectives
see participants as sources of information and data, rarely as sources of
thinking and feeling
ignore the idea that the same person can hold opposing views on the same
issue at one time
design questions to generate an either/or response
be limited by the choice of participant, making it difficult to see how
things really are, as views are tempered by the atmosphere, the strength of
view expressed by others, etc.
THE RISKS OF TEAMS
In many teams:
the primary concern is with tasks and results, rarely with learning and
relationships
members are required to stay in control and not "let go" to express how
things really are
few members get chances to express themselves, or be recognised for their
personal qualities and feelings
few opportunities exist to communicate openly, to exchange thoughts and
feeling in ways that lead to mutual learning and trust
members are rarely allowed to remain true to their viewpoint and open to
other people's views at the same time (they are expected to take sides i.e.
vote)
the capacity of members to learn together or feel connected in a common
cause is rarely developed
THE RISKS OF CONSULTATION
Consultation may:
only seek views on predetermined options or possibilities
be driven by a security/control political culture that believes there is
one right way
categorise different perceptions and views according to predetermined criteria
not be open to the unexpected or views outside the agenda
only value difference as a quantitative issue, not a qualitative one
fail because those involved feel the process is contrived and unnatural
assume that the method that worked last time will work again
THE RISKS OF SERVICE REVIEWS
Service reviews may:
rarely involve users in considering options, usually only to comment on
what they receive or are entitled to
not integrate multiple perspectives, instead they may classify them to make
control decisions, not relationship improvement decisions
take actions that are not about adapting to what is actually happening or
needed by service users, but about fitting what the professionals think to
the resources available
not accept uncertainty in what they plan and therefore look for reasons why
the plan failed, and may not accept that the needs of the people or the
situation may require a change
THE RISKS OF DIALOGUE
The dialogue approach can:
ENCOURAGE A MINDSET (a mental model, if you prefer) which accepts that
genuine views emerge through ongoing conversations, not from off-the-cuff
opinions fed by leading questions. This makes it time consuming and
expensive, and minority views cannot be dismissed on purely quantitative
grounds. Considering a multiplicity of views is felt by many to make life
too complicated and is therefore seen as unmanageable. That's why the
'dialogue coach' usually only gets called in at the very end.
ACCEPT PARADOX as the generator of possiblities and the tester of
assumptions. This undermines the adversarial nature of organisational
politics, and 'bosses' lose power and influence because they cannot claim
other people's ideas and suggestions as their own. This can make life
awkward and challenging for traditional managers - they fear things getting
out of their control.
ACCEPT UNCERTAINTY AND EMERGENCE. Uncertainty: not knowing things for
sure because memory plays tricks; emergence: order will emerge from
synthesising integrating ideas not by analysing and categorising them.
This requires the active involvement of all key stakeholders to get
ownership and clarify who is accountable.
BE UNCOMFORTABLE: communicating and negotiating different worldviews is
more important than "being right". This means managers have to foster other
people's learning, which means experiencing feelings of losing control,
feeling less secure and having to accept 'good enough', rather than
searching for the ideal (right) answers. To consider multiple
interrelationships is seen as a recipe for chaos, not an opportunity for
learning and discovery. It's a luxury that traditional managers can't
afford.
CHALLENGE ASSUMPTIONS. This is unsettling, if not downright threatening to
people's sense of self and personal values and beliefs. To accept that the
way they do things isn't working, or what they are doing may not be what's
wanted, is not comfortable.
--from Arthur Battram, organisational learning adviser, helping local authorities to apply complexity concepts to personal and organisational learning. 'Learning from Complexity' pack available NOW finally, 110 pounds sterling full price, 71.50 to registered charities, 55 -half price- for local authorities in England and Wales who finance LGMB, -credit card payment accepted- for details email me: apb@cityplex.demon.co.uk
***the truth? that would be an ekumenical matter...***
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>