SYSTEMS SENSITIVE DIALOGUE INTERVENTION - by Sebastian Slotte

Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland

P.O.Box 1100, FIN-02015 HUT, Finland

Email: sebastian.slotte@hut.fi

Tel. +358 50 376 1967

Fax +358 9 451 3096

Abstract

The paper presents a general methodology for dialogue interventions, Systems

Sensitive Dialogue Intervention Dialogue interventions are viewed in the light of Gerald

Midgleys general presentation of systemic intervention. By focusing on the dialogue

philosophy of Martin Buber and the key elements in two popular dialogue methods it is

proposed that a) enhancing individual participants sensitivity to the unique human system

they form is the primary task of a dialogue intervention, b) when designing dialogical

interventions it is useful to creatively use elements from different available dialogical

methods and c) dialogue interventions should be designed in experiential and existential

rather than in metaphysical terms.

Keywords: dialogue, systemic intervention, methodology

INTRODUCTION

Dialogue methods consist of specific rules and guidelines that aim to improve group

interaction, collective learning and investigation. The central task of a dialogue is to provide

a setting for communication and thinking in a group. Normally, the guidelines and rules for

everyday debates, discussions and meetings are tacit. Of course, tacit rules vary from

organization to organization and from culture to culture, and it is contingent which rules are

applied. In dialogue interventions these rules and guidelines are made explicit.

Over the past ten years, dialogue has made a breakthrough in a number of fields.

Dialogue has been recommended by organizational theoreticians and introduced in

organizations for various purposes. The systems thinking variant of the learning organization

(Senge, 1990; Senge et al., 1994), the knowledge creating company (Nonaka and Takeuchi,

1995) and the notion of corporate culture (Schein, 1999) are examples of general

organizational theories which regard dialogue as a central organizational practice. Dialogue

and dialogical methods are presented as a core practice of specific organizational areas such

as team learning (Senge, 1990; Senge et al., 1994), leadership programs (Frydman et al.,

2000), corporate responsibility and human rights (Frankental et al., 2000) and Business

Ethics (Maclagan, 2000; van Hooft 2000).

Moreover, dialogue has been implemented in participatory planning(Väntänen et. al,

2003) community building (Freire, 1972), and in national and international conflict

resolution (Deutsch and Coleman, 2000; Susskind et al., 1999). Educational dialogue has

been presented as an alternative to traditional teacher and fact centered education (Norris,

2003). Moreover, general recipes for dialogical interventions and consultancy have been put

forth by theoreticians and practitioners alike (Ellinor and Gerard 1998; Flick, 1998; Isaacs,

1999; Simmons, 1999; Yankelovich, 1999).

The effort of this paper is to contribute to the development of a methodology for

Dialogue Interventions called Systems Sensitive Dialogue Intervention. In accordance

with Midgleys (2000) theory of systemic intervention, it is proposed that a methodology

is an important aid for practitioners and researchers in designing proper and effective

dialogue interventions.

A proper dialogue intervention is defined as aiming at enhancing participants’

sensitivity to the human system they form together. This sensitivity to the relational,

inquiring, and synergetic is constitutive to dialogue. An effective dialogue intervention

produces through appropriate dialogue produces a desirable outcome e.g. improvement,

from the whole systems viewpoint.

The notion of Systems Sensitive Dialogue Intervention is a result of empirical

experimentation with various dialogue methods and combinations. The interventions

where carried out in various fields such as education (Hjelm and Slotte, 2001; Slotte and

Hjelm, 2002; Slotte 2003), decision making (Slotte and Hämäläinen, 2003), and natural

resources conflict management (Väntänen et al., 2003).

The research is related to a multidisciplinary research project on Systems

Intelligence (Hämäläinen and Saarinen, 2004) of which dialogue is an integral part.

The presentation of Systems Sensitive Dialogue Intervention is organized in the

following way. Firstly, dialogue interventions are discussed in the light of Midgely’s

(2000) theory of Systemic Intervention. Secondly, reservations against the benefits of

dialogue are discussed with references to Stacey (2001). Systems Sensitive Dialogue

Interventions are presented as enhancing systems sensitivity in participants, resting on a

creative use of methods and avoiding normative metaphysical demands.

METHODOLOGY

Recently, there have been some disputes about which methods create proper and

efficient dialogue an are the most accurate (Kessels, 2001; Platts, 2002). The claim

made here is that such discussions become obsolate if one takes the human system and

its particular needs as a starting point for dialogue interventions. Rather than asking

which method is the correct one, the practitioner should consider what he can do and

which actions and methods in any particular situation create proper dialogue e.g. an

atmosphere of joint investigation, thinking together, inquiry, reflection and respect

(Boele, 1997; Bohm, 1996; Buber, 1947) in a human system, such as a team, a class, a

family, a group of stakeholders, a management team etc. The laws of social behavior are

not as rigid as the laws of mechanism and nature. The same method is likely to produce

different outcomes in different settings. Accordingly, we cannot expect that one method

will produce proper dialogue in every situation. Rather, proper dialogue is reached

through a creative use of different methods.

According to Midgley (2000), a methodology for systemic intervention should

take action for improvement as an explicit starting point. Improvement is defined

temporarily and locally as different human systems and agents may use different

boundary judgments (Midgley, 2000). In Systems Sensitive Dialogue Intervention,

improvement is viewed through the realization of the desired consequences of the

human system engaged in dialogue. The goals of the different dialogue methods

include, for example, the clarification of a concept, conflict resolution and improved

joint investigation. When a particular aim is realized it represents improvement, if the

system engaged in dialogue judges so.

Thus, the methods to facilitate dialogue interventions should not be regarded as

static but flexible and should be chosen in compliance with the expectations, needs,

fears, values and maturity of the individuals participating, and with the human system

they together create.

Finally, it is proposed that not only the facilitator of a dialogue intervention

should be open about his normative vision (Midgley, 2001; Midgley and Ochoa-Arias,

1999) but not impose it.The that participants engaged in a dialogue intervention should

be encouraged to reflect on ideological, metaphysical and pragmatic boundaries

(Midgley, 2001).

CHALLENGES

In recent criticism the impact of dialogue has been questioned. A powerful

argument against dialogue as presented by Senge and Bohm is made by Stacey (2001).

Stacey makes a strong case about learning and knowledge creation in organizations and

argues that dialogue is an attempt to return to the ancient wisdom and conversational

patterns of old cultures, such as those of North American Indians. Stacey rebukes this

attempt as a nonsensical romantic idea of a lost Eden.

However, the references to Native Americans should be regarded as a

pedagogical way of illustrating alternatives to aggressive debate, advocacy and

dialectics. The rise of the principles and the practice of dialogue is, in fact, a highly

modern phenomenon with purely European roots (Taylor, 1989; Walker,1999). Of

course, dialogue was a central way to engage in theoretical matters with practical

implications in the days of Socrates (Zanakis et al., 2003) and during the Hellenistic era

of philosophy, the practice of dialogical skills, such as listening and presence became a

central skill in the philosophical quest for a good life (Hadot, 1995). But not before the

first half of the 20th century did philosophers, such as Leonard Nelson, Martin Buber,

and Mikhail Bakhtin formulate the basic ideas of dialogue as a practice that all men and

women can and should engage in (Bradbury and Lichtenstein 2000). It is these

philosophies of dialogue that organizational practitioners, theoreticians, educationalists

and consultants today, indirectly or directly, are building on in real world interventions.

In opposition to Bohm’s and Senge’s dialogue conception, Stacey (2001) wants to

draw attention to the multitude of everyday conversations that can be very creative but also

very destructive. Moreover, Stacey claims that organizational theoreticians and consultants,

instead of presenting dialogue and other conversational tools of an idealized kind, should

focus on understanding the communicative interaction we currently engage in within

hierarchical organizations. The answer to Stacey on this point is that there is extensive

evidence suggesting that ordinary communication and the thinking that accompanies it often

goes wrong in ways that may have negative, sometimes fatal, impact on a wide variety of

organizational aspects: failure of organizational change programs, failure of strategic

programs, and collapse of internal and external ethics (Dalla Costa, 1999; De Geuss, 1999;

Senge et al., 1999). It is widely accepted that ordinary communication and thinking can, and

at times should, be the object of change (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001; Janis, 1982). Far

from being an idealization, dialogue takes into account ordinary ways of communication and

can, in the form of dialogue sessions, be a complement to these. The lessons and skills

learned in dialogue session can also be transformed and incorporated into other more

ordinary forms of communication and interaction (Slotte, 2004).

According to Stacey (2001), dialogue assumes a distinction between the

individual and the collective mind. Stacey argues that the individual and the group are

the same phenomenon and that there is no transcendent whole, or group mind, or

common pool of meaning outside of it. Rather, common meaning emerges in the

communicative interaction between people in their local situation in the present (Stacey,

2001). However, dialogue is fundamentally not resting on such an ontological split, but

rather in line with the view Stacey holds on this particular issue. Bohm whose ideas

about dialogue the argument is directed against, clearly states (Bohm 1992; Bohm 1996)

that individual thinking is dependent on cultural structures of thought and that

individual thinking has an impact on the common structure and content of thought in a

given culture. In fact, dialogue rest on the idea that individual thoughts and collective

thought are not separate but necessarily affecting each other. Dialogue is rather in line

with constructivism (Gergen et al., 2002). However, Stacey must be credited for his

indirect criticism of attempts to present dialogue as resting more or less on mysticism

and as a strive for predetermined metaphysical insights. I will return to this point in the

next to last section of the paper.

SYSTEMS FOCUS

Common for the different conceptions and methods of dialogue is the attempt to

overcome individual and social barriers for sharing meaning, values and understanding.

Dialogue has proven to be a powerful way of intervening, for example, in situations

were threats to joint investigation, mutual respect and meaningful communication such

as groupthink ,(Janis, 1982) defensive and limiting interpersonal reasoning are strong

(Kahneman et al., 1982).

Martin Buber’s (1947) philosophy of dialogue paves the way towards seeing a

group of dialoguers as a special kind of human system. Buber’s views on dialogue have

been applied in counseling and to some extent in conflict situations (Schuster, 1999) but

when it comes to dialogue interventions in larger human systems, such as as

organizations, his views on dialogue and especially his view of relationality have

remained somewhat in the shadow (Bradbury H and Lichtenstein B, 2000). For

example, Dixon (1998), Flick (1998) Isaacs (1999), Senge (1990) and Yankelovich

(1999) all mention Buber as an important figure. However, they do not explicitly apply

dialogue with reference to his discussion on applied dialogue (Buber, 1947). Though

Buber did not envision a dialogue method, he claimed that the necessary conditions for

dialogue to emerge as a practice are the recognition of relationality, trust, the idea of

communication with and responsibility (Buber 1947).

According to Buber (1947) engagement in dialogue must be promoted by

pointing to the relational character of human systems. The importance of the relational

aspects of dialogue cannot be emphasized enough. First and foremost dialogue becomes

a way to relate with the other participants partaking in the dialogue. The challenge of

the participants in dialogue is to recognize the uniqueness of the particular human

systems they comprise. It is through the notion of this engagement that the dialogical

skills such as listening, suspension, respecting and voicing (Isaacs, 1999) gain their

meaning.

The entrance to dialogue is the realization that man is a relational creature that

has the possibility to meet, communicate and create in a “space between”. The

relationality and the “space between” is not just something one might choose or wish to

engage in. According to Buber (1947) it exists independently of any particular action

between human beings. The “space between” is not observable in space and time in the

same sense that a single individual and a collective are. For example, changes in a

person, such as aging, can be seen when observing that person for some time. Likewise,

a collective and its changes can be observed in space and time. However, the “space

between” is not observable in similar fashion. It is something re-constituted in every

accidental encounter between two persons (Buber 1947).

Engagement in dialogue is to fully engage oneself with the other. Dialogue is not

primarly a detached presentation of ones ideas and a detached inquiry into the ideas of

others. Dialogue is not communication about but communication with (Buber, 1947). It

is not plainly aimed at exchanging views between contributors from to different

perspectives or human systems. The focus of a dialogue intervention should primary be

on the values, knowledge and ideas within the system currently engaged in dialogue, not

on the values, knowledge and ideas of the individuals or the system they represent. To

engage in dialogue does not necessarily mean giving up ones own point of view or fully

accepting that of the other. Buber statets that the individual sphere is untouched, but

when people enter into dialogue the law of individual points no longer holds (Buber

1947). Thus, for Buber the ontology of the dialogical, e.g. the reality and nature of

dialogue is systemic in the systems thinking sense of the word: human systems in

dialogue develop and create something new out of what the participating individual

values, ideas and knowledge bring with them. In dialogue, participants set aside the

belief that thoughts or ideas can only be communicated from an individual to another, or

that rules and forces external to these two individuals determine what is spoken. The

space between can be characterized as a form of common reason where multiple voices

create and work on single ideas.

The idea of the relational character of communication differs strongly from the

so called conduit metaphor which is the dominant view of communication, for example,

in the lion part of managerial textbooks (Bokeno, 2002; Axley, 1984). According to the

conduit metaphor, successful communication is like a pipeline. Messages are

understood as information that are transmitted from a sender to a receiver, decoded by

the receiver, and successful if the meaning of the message is the same at both ends

(Bokeno 2002). According to Bokeno the conduit metaphor which describes how the

understanding and practice of communication is perceived in organizations, is

theoretically inappropriate, often dysfunctional and ineffective and a hindrance for

implementing programs for creative, playfull and innovative communication such as

dialogue. If the conduit concept is dominating and not questioned, dialogic modes of

interaction are in danger of being covered as yet another management concept, rather

than modeled or developed as the rich, constructive and productive mode of interaction

that it is (Bokeno 2002).

An example of why a dialogue intervention might fail due to the mistake of

viewing dialogue as conduit communication is found in the practice what is called

cross-cultural dialogue (Du Bois and Hutson, 1997). Cross-cultural dialogue has

recently been criticized for encouraging such knowledge of other participants that is

considered inappropriate (Jones 1999). In a cross-cultural dialogue where white and

black students were participating in order to exchange information about their own

culture the demands by white students to know marginalized black students enforced

colonizing attitudes and strengthened prejudices. According to Jones (1999), emphatic

knowing in cross-cultural dialogue can thus prevent us from recognizing our own

systematic complicity.

From the viewpoint presented here, cross-cultural dialogue is not dialogical

because its reliance upon the conduit metaphor prevents participants in dialogue to

perceive each other as forming a unique human system. In a dialogue situation

participants practice and focus on the virtues of dialogue, pay attention to their own

habits of thought, mental models and possible prejudices. Especially dialogue that aims

at mediating in conflicts between participants should aid understanding and respect for

their counterparts by encouraging to meet the person behind the system or position they

represent. Engagement in group dialogue leaves personal integrity intact but allows for

surprise and unpredictable innovations in the interplay between dialoguers. According

to Buber, a criteria for dialogue is that participants have the intention of establishing

mutual relations (Buber 1947).

Naturally, participants in a dialogue also have obligations and commitments to

other systems and goals. The point emphasized here is that dialogue is especially well

suited for understanding and working with the human system one is temporarily

engaged with. When a dialogical relationship is established, it can well serve as a basis

for discussing and reflecting on commitments to other human systems.

MIXING METHODS

The systems emphasis in Systems Sensitive Dialogue Intervention bears

consequences on method. The proposal here is that the starting point of a dialogue

intervention should not be one given method and its utilizations for a given purpose but

rather the needs and challenges of the human system that is to be engaged in dialogue.

The human system comes first, then method. This is not to say that methods are

superfluous. However, the design and facilitation of dialogue is situational. Methods

chosen should correspond to the motivation and maturity of the participants of dialogue.

In the following I shall briefly present two popular dialogue methods, Bohmian

and Nelsonian dialogue in order to show that both, despite their differences, have

strengths and can be used in dialogue interventions.

The Bohmian Method

According to the Bohmian School of dialogue, the focus in dialogue should be

on process rather than on content. A dialogue should not have a predetermined agenda

or a given content (Isaacs 1999; Senge, 1994; Simmons, 1999). By paying attention to

the guidelines or virtues of dialogue, the agenda or issues are said to emerge during the

dialogue process itself (Bohm, 1992; Bohm, 1996). Isaacs (1999) discusses four

principal virtues of dialogue: listening, suspension of judgment, expressing and

respecting. The virtues are not simply presented as virtues that one can automatically

turn to but rather as skills that one should develop and learn to practice. Other important

virtues or skills presented by Isaac and other theoreticians and practitioners include

thinking together, encouraging others to speak, focusing on the issue and not on the

personal character of other participants, winning together rather than winning for

yourself, speaking from experience, and changing the viewpoint.

The reason to engage in dialogue is, for Bohm and others who share his views

on dialogue, a practical matter. Dialogue creates shared meaning, values and a sense of

community that supports joint action and the creation of culture (Bohm 1992). By

making dialogue one of the core principles of an organization or a community a new

communication and thinking culture can emerge. Isaacs (1999) and Senge (1994)

provide a lot of examples of this. For Senge et al. (1994) dialogue becomes a way to

align action. According to Senge (1990), Bohmian type of dialogue gives access to such

information and meaning that cannot be accessed individually, enhances new action,

provides individuals with collective meaning and offers a place for innovation and

inquiry. Furthermore, all these capabilities are thought to improve efficiency in groups

and in organizations.

The Socratic Method

Leonard Nelson (1956) developed the Socratic Method. Today it is chiefly

known as Socratic Dialogue or Neo-Socratic Dialogue. Socratic Dialogue is a way to

engage people in an advanced philosophical dialogue. The method should naturally not

be confused with the Socratic dialogues of Plato even if it is inspired by Socrates

(Boele, 1997). Participation in a Socratic dialogue does not require prior experience in

philosophy but an interest to discuss philosophical and ethical questions and a

willingness to distance oneself from one’s own commitments (Boele, 1998; Van Hooft,

2000). In organizational contexts, Socratic dialogue has become especially popular in

developing and investigating values and business ethics (Bolten 2001, Kessels 2001,

Van Hooft 2000). In contrast to the idea that dialogue is rather process than content

Socratic dialogue stands out by always focusing on a predetermined topic or question.

The core of Socratic Dialogue is called “regressive abstraction”. Regressive

abstraction is an inquiry into the everyday experiences of participants and their

understanding of these experiences by comparing, analyzing and seeing them in the

light of the general concepts they are founded on. For example, a concrete experience

conceptualized and described as an instance of freedom is contrasted with a general

definition of freedom. Both the concrete experience and the abstraction are developed in

the course of the dialogue by the dialoguers themselves.

A Socratic Dialogue starts with a question of investigation, for instance: “What

is meaningful work?”, “What is freedom?”, or “What is love?”. The dialogue starts with

all participants giving a personal example of a situation were they feel that an instance

of the matter of investigation was realized. The participants, when presenting their

examples, do not have to prove that their examples are an instance of the matter of

investigation. Intuition or feeling is enough. The example should be one in which the

participant herself is a main character. Also, the example should be concrete in space

and time. For example; “Two weeks ago on Sunday, when visiting a friend of mine the

following happened”. The dialogue proceeds by discussing which one of the examples

should be chosen as a core example of the investigation. After choosing one example

the dialogue gradually reaches an increasingly abstract level culminating in a core

definition: E.g. “freedom is X” were X stands for a sentence of attributes suggested and

dialogued about amongst the participants. Thereafter the dialogue proceeds back to the

concrete by analyzing the abstract judgments principles and rules and ending at the

question about its applicability in concrete life.

Content and Process

For a general methodology of dialogue in Systemic interventions, both the

Bohmian and Nelsonian methods are important. Systems Sensitive Dialogue

Intervention takes into consideration both content and process. Dialogue intervention

can focus solely on content but often such dialogues does not have an impact on the way

people interact. It does not provide dialoguers with a new ability for interaction e.g.

systems sensitivity. The merits of Socratic Dialogue in a Systemic Intervention is that it

provides a structured way to engage in dialogue about a given issue and that dialoguers

find perspectives on the issue from personal experience, thus avoiding speculation and

possible power differences due to, for example, educational level or position.

When the choice of method is based on the needs of the human system engaging

in dialogue, a combination of methods can be useful. For instance, a conflict situation

might require that participants improve their listening skills, are encouraged to show

respect for other stakeholders, and learn to thinking together. However, to engage in a

dialogue with no agenda can easily grow into a feeling that it is a waste time especially

if it is a conflict situation and in times of pressing problems (Frydman et al., 2000;

Slotte and Hämäläinen 2004 ).

Systems Sensitive Dialogue Intervention emphasizes creative design of dialogue

interventions. This has, for example been done in a natural resources decision making

context (Slotte and Hämäläinen 2003) where the reflection on boundaries as an

improvement itself became important. The creative mix of dialogue methods can also be

strengthened by other dialogue-related methods such as Appreciative Inquiry

(Copperrider and Whitney 1999; Norum 2003) and Communication Other/Wise

(Bokeno 2002).

FROM METAPHYSICS TO EXPERIENCE

Commitment to any particular metaphysics of dialogue is not a necessary

precondition for engaging in dialogue. In a Systems Sensitive Dialogue Intervention, the

facilitator refraims from advancing any metaphysical agenda of her own. Midgley (2000)

points out and questions the fact that some people in the Community OR research

community have included political agendas in their interventions. What applies to political

agendas in Midgleys analysis applies to metaphysics in dialogue interventions . Bohmian

dialogue, Socratic dialogue and Bubers presentation of dialogue include metaphysical claims

such as ”the unfolding of thought”, ”the implicate order” ”the self-confidence of reason” and

”unity with God”. Ethically, practitioners and theoreticians are in their full right to ascribe

metaphysical characteristic to dialogue but these meta-level descriptions should not inform a

dialogue intervention. When the applicative literature presents the metaphysical hypotheses

and metaphors of the philosophies of dialogue as hard facts of dialogue, dialogue runs the

risk of becoming a quest for these metaphysical and metaphorical states and thus perceived

by participants as a mystic procedure were the ultimate goal is to experience a metaphysical

state such as the implicate order, collective intelligence, the one, God or the Platonic world

of ideas.

For example, if dialogue is defined as a quest for the platonic ideas or unity with

God, it would be difficult and ethically questionable to engage a relativist respectively

an atheist in the dialogue. Participants in a dialogue should be given the sole right to

draw their own metaphysical conclusion about the dialogue. Systems sensitivity does

not involve, preclude or exclude any predetermined metaphysics but concerns

observable relational aspects. In other words, it is proposed that the classification of the

metaphysical nature of these experiences should be left to the dialoguers themselves.

A Systems Sensitive Dialogue Intervention assumes that imposing any

metaphysical ideas on dialoguers is at odds with the core ideas of dialogue. Participation

in a dialogue which assumes some alien metaphysical principle can be awkward and

restrain people from engaging in dialogue. When such metaphysical entities are

presented as the goal of dialogue, the core philosophical principle of dialogue as a free

encounter between dialoguers, becomes endangered. Ethically, there is a risk that the

metaphysical entities are at odds with the personal worldviews of the dialoguers.

Pragmatically, the methods to facilitate dialogue become guided by the metaphysical

entities in favor of the needs, creativity and engagement of the dialoguers. Instead of

creating a strong personal experience and a new attitude towards discussed issues it runs

the risk of becoming a ritual predetermined by a metaphysical agenda.

It should be noted that dialoguers often express their personal experiences in

subjective terms, sometimes reflecting personal, sometimes cultural values. When a

group uses terms such as “magic” or “energy” to express their experiences, it should not

automatically be viewed in metaphysical terms. Actors, as well as dialoguers, often use

the world “energy” metaphorically or poetically to describe the level of co-operation. If

understood literally the experience of “energy” and talk of energy levels could easily be

dismissed as unscientific, but interpreted metaphorically, it can make perfect sense

(Collins 2004).

However, practitioners should not hide their personal views on metaphysical

questions if they are strongly committed to some. They should, however, make it clear

that the participants are free to draw their own metaphysical conclusions.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This paper has sought to contribute to a methodology for dialogue interventions.

Systems Sensitive Dialogue Intervention presents dialogue as one of many possible ways

humans engage in communication. Systems Sensitive Dialogue Intervention recognizes the

value of other language games in human systems and is not an effort to challenge these but is

an aid in designing dialogical intervention in situations where such are perceived to be

appropriate.

When participants learn to engage in dialogue, they learn a new way of relating that,

in itself, is more of an act than mere speech or contemplation of ideas. This ability is can be

used in any human encounter.

In a Systems Sensitive Dialogue Intervention the main focus of the participants

is the human system that is comprised out of the participants. Of course, participants in

dialogue bring with them their values, ideas and knowledge. However, a Systems

Sensitive Dialogue Intervention strives not to compare, transmit or evaluate these.

Instead, it focuses on what values, ideas and knowledge emerge from the dialogical

relation.

Systems Sensitive Dialogue Intervention encourages scientists, philosophers,

consultants and managers facilitating a dialogue to creatively combine content and

process focused methods with the human system that is engaging in dialogue as the

starting point.

The paper identifies the value of different dialogue-methods for dialogue

interventions. The notion of Systems Sensitive Dialogue Interventions was developed as

a result of empirical work with dialogue. It can be developed further by case studies of

dialogical interventions that are designed in accordance with the recommendations

presented here.

REFERENCES

Axley S. 1985. Managerial and Organizational Communication in Terms of the Conduit

Metaphor. Academy of Management Review 24 649-681.

Boele D. 1997. The Benefits of a Socratic Dialogue or: Which Results Can We Promise.

Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 17(3): 48-70.

Bohm D. 1980. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge: London.

Bohm D. 1992. Thought as a System. Routledge: London.

Bohm D. 1996. On Dialogue. Routledge: London.

Bokeno RM. 2002. Communicating Other/Wise. Reason in Practice –The Journal of

Philosophy of Management 2(1): 11-23.

Bolten H. 2001. Managers Develop Moral Accountability: The Impact of Socratic

Dialogue. Reason in Practice, The Journal of Philosophy of Management 1(3): 21-33.

Bradbury H, Lichtenstein B. 2000.The Space Between: Operationalizing Relationality

in Organizational Research. Organization Science 11: 551-564.

Buber M. 1947. Between Man and Man. Translated by Smith RG.Routledge and Kegan

Paul: London.

Collins R. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton University Press: Princeton.

Copperrider D, Whitney, D. 1999. Appreciative Inquiry. Berret-Koeler

Communications: San Francisco.

Dalla Costa J. 1998. The Ethical Imperative - Why Moral Leadership is Good Business.

Harper Collins: New York.

De Geus A. The Living Company. Nicholas Brealey Publishing: London.

Deutsch M, Coleman PT. 2000. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution. Jossey-Bass: San

Francisco.

Dixon N. 1998. Dialogue at Work. Lemos and Crane: London

Du Bois PM, Hutson JJ. 1997. Bridging the Racial Divide: A Report on Interracial

Dialogue in America. Center for Living Democracy, Interracial Democracy Program:

Brattleboro, VT.

Ellinor L, Gerard G. 1998. Dialogue. Wiley and Sons: New York.

Flick D. 1998. From Debate to Dialogue. Orchid Publications: Boulder.

Frankental P, House F. 2000. Human Rights – Is It Any of Your Business. Amnesty

International and The Prince of Wales Business Forum: London.

Freire P. 1972. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin: Harmondsworth.

Frydman B, Wilson I, Wyer, J. 2000. The Power of Collaborative Leadership.

Butterworth-Heineman: Boston.

Gergen K, McNamee S, Barrett F. 2002. Realizing Transformative Dialogue. In The

Transformative power of Dialogue Roberts N (ed). Elsevier: Oxford; 77-105.

Hadot P. 1995. Philosophy as a Way of Life. Blackwell Publishers: Oxford.

Hjelm T, Slotte S. 2001. Dialogi hyvästä elämästä. Tammi: Helsinki.

Huczynski A, Buchanan, D. 2001. Organizational Behaviour, 4th edition. Pearson

Education Limited: Harlow.

Hämäläinen RP, Saarinen E (eds.). 2004. Systems Intelligence: Discovering a Hidden

Competence in Human Action and Organizational Life. Systems Analysis Laboratory

Research Reports A88: Helsinki University of Technology.

Isaacs W. 1999. Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. Doubleday: New York.

Janis IL. 1982. Groupthink: Psychological studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascos.

Houghton-Miffin: Boston.

Jones A. 1999. The Limits of Cross-Cultural Dialogue: Pedagogy, Desire, and

Absolution in the Classroom. Educational Theory 49(3): 299-317.

Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds). (1982). Judgement under Uncertainty:

Heuristics and Biases Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Kessels J. 2001. Socrates Comes to Market. Reason in Practice- The Journal of

Philosophy of Management 1(1): 49-71.

Maclagan P. 1998. Management and Morality. Sage Publications: London.

Midgley G. 2000. Systemic Intervention. Kluwer: New York.

Midgley G, Ochoa-Arias, AE. 1999. Visions of Community for Community OR.

Omega 27: 259-274.

Nelson L. 1965 Socratic Method and Critical Philosophy: Selected Essays. Translated

by Brown T.Dover: NewYork.

Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company. Oxford University

Press: New York.

Norris JA. 2003. From Telling to Teaching – A Dialogue Approach to Adult Learning.

Learning by Dialogue: North Myrtle Beach.

Norum KE. 2001. Appreciative Design. Systems Research and Behavioral Science

18(4): 323-333.

Platts J. (2002). Knowledge in Action: A Response to Jos Kessels. Reason in Practice-

The Journal of Philosophy of Management 1(2): 83-84.

Saarinen E, Slotte S. 2003. Philosophical Lecturing as a Philosophical Practice.

Practical Philosophy 6(2): 7-23.

Schein E. 1999. Corporate Culture - a Survival Guide. Joessey Bass, San Francisco.

Schuster S. 1999. Philosophy Practice. Praeger Publishers: Westport, CT.

Senge P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline- The Art and Practice of the Learning

Organization. Currency Doubleday: New York.

Senge P, Kleiner A, Roberts C, Ross R, Smith B. 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook:

Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. Nicholas Brealey

Publishing: NewYork.

Senge P, Kleiner A, Roberts C, Ross R, Roth G, Smith B. 1999. The Dance of Change:

The Challenge of Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations. Nicholas Brealey

Publishing: NewYork.

Simmons A. 1999. A Safe Place for Dangerous Truths. AMACOM: New York.

Slotte S, Hjelm T.2002. Dialogi hyvästä elämästä – opettajan opas. Tammi: Helsinki.

Slotte S. 2003. Dialogue as Systems Intelligence – What is Systems Intelligence?

Abstract in English. In Systeemiäly!, Bäckström T, Brummer V, Kling T, Siitonen P

(eds.) Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports B23. p 225.

Slotte S, Hämäläinen RP. 2003. Decision Structuring Dialogue. Systems Analysis

Research Reports E13.Helsinki University of Technology.

Slotte S. 2004. Dialogue and Systems Intelligence: A Work Philosophy. In Systems

Intelligence, Hämäläinen RP, Saarinen E (eds). Systems Analysis Laboratory Research

Reports A 88. Helsinki University of Technology: 39-55.

Stacey RD. 2001. Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations: Learning and

Knowledge Creation. Routledge:London.

Susskin L, McKearnan S, Thomas-Larmer J. 1999. The Consensus Building Handbook:

A Comprehensive Guide to Reach Agreement. Sage Publications: London.

Taylor C. 1989. Sources of the Self - The Making of Modern Identity. Cambridge

University Press: Cambridge.

Van Hooft S. 2001. Overcoming Principles: Dialogue in Business Ethics. Teaching

Business Ethics 5(1): 89-106.

Väntänen A, Marttunen M, Turunen JP, Slotte S, Hiedanpää J 2003. Vuorovaikkutteiset

suunnittelumenetelmät Kemijärven Säännöstelyn Kehittämisessä. Suomen ympäristö

658. Finnish Environment Institute: Helsinki.

Walker FN. 1999. Imprisonment and Release Through Speech. In Outside The Wall:

Reintegration strategies for the New Millenium. Proceedings of the Alberta Correctional

Education Annual Conference:51-69.

Yankelovich D. 1999. The Magic of Dialogue - Transforming Conflict into

Cooperation. Touchstone books: New York.

Zanakis SH, Theofanides S, Kontaratos AN, Tassios TP. 2003. Ancient Greeks’

Practices and Contributions in Public and Entrepreneurship Decision Making. Interfaces

33: 72-88.