Discussion and Dialogue
I am currently reading The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge, about systems thinking. He brings up a very interesting point about different kinds of communication-- the contrast between discussion and dialogue.
Discussion has the same root as "percussion" or "concussion." It's about throwing things back and forth (views, mainly). It has the goal of convincing the other side to adopt your viewpoint, perhaps through the power of the salvos you are launching (this could be deductive logical power, or simply the forcefulness of your voice). Discussion is convergent; it's about narrowing down to fewer (or one) viewpoints.
Dialogue comes from a different root: dia and logos. It's about seeing more broadly through the exchange of words. Dialogue has a flow to it, where views are fluid rather than solid. Ideas are played with, picked up and dropped quickly as the words move through. It is divergent, resulting in an expansion of possibilities and an enhancement of connection.
That is not to say that discussion is inferior or useless. In fact it is critical for making decisions, which does have to happen in the real world. What is most important is that the interacting group of people have a sense of when they are in discussion and when they are in dialogue. It is easy to slip from dialogue to discussion. This will happen when people start to get attached to particular views and start trying to defend them. Vigilence can keep the flow open when the group is supposed to be engaged in dialogue. And then the shift to discussion can be more deliberate when a decision needs to be made.
This is my first practical glimpse at how group dynamics really works, and how it might actually be applied in real groups. Sure, I've had ad hoc training in how to run meetings and how to keep fiesty groups of people settled on one task. But this book makes it a lot more systematic. It's like discovering science after a decade of messing around with a chemistry set in the basement.
Human groups are systems, just like anthills, crystals, ecosytems, and the economy. They may be unpredictable at times, but they are not random. There are tools that can help us understand and manage what is going on. And there is a considerable portion of art mixed in with the science, and emotion mixed in with the logic/theory.
We are reading this book for a course in management. I am finding it interesting, and quite challenging. It draws on very different sources than my formal training in science.
Discussion has the same root as "percussion" or "concussion." It's about throwing things back and forth (views, mainly). It has the goal of convincing the other side to adopt your viewpoint, perhaps through the power of the salvos you are launching (this could be deductive logical power, or simply the forcefulness of your voice). Discussion is convergent; it's about narrowing down to fewer (or one) viewpoints.
Dialogue comes from a different root: dia and logos. It's about seeing more broadly through the exchange of words. Dialogue has a flow to it, where views are fluid rather than solid. Ideas are played with, picked up and dropped quickly as the words move through. It is divergent, resulting in an expansion of possibilities and an enhancement of connection.
That is not to say that discussion is inferior or useless. In fact it is critical for making decisions, which does have to happen in the real world. What is most important is that the interacting group of people have a sense of when they are in discussion and when they are in dialogue. It is easy to slip from dialogue to discussion. This will happen when people start to get attached to particular views and start trying to defend them. Vigilence can keep the flow open when the group is supposed to be engaged in dialogue. And then the shift to discussion can be more deliberate when a decision needs to be made.
This is my first practical glimpse at how group dynamics really works, and how it might actually be applied in real groups. Sure, I've had ad hoc training in how to run meetings and how to keep fiesty groups of people settled on one task. But this book makes it a lot more systematic. It's like discovering science after a decade of messing around with a chemistry set in the basement.
Human groups are systems, just like anthills, crystals, ecosytems, and the economy. They may be unpredictable at times, but they are not random. There are tools that can help us understand and manage what is going on. And there is a considerable portion of art mixed in with the science, and emotion mixed in with the logic/theory.
We are reading this book for a course in management. I am finding it interesting, and quite challenging. It draws on very different sources than my formal training in science.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home