Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

14 P R I N C I PA L S W H O L E A R N

Guidelines for Dialogue


Next we learned about guidelines for dialogue, basic tenets guiding the
process of group conversation. Any time a group plans to convene regularly,
their first order of business is to agree on a set of rules that will guide their
behavior during the meeting. Reaching consensus with a protocol allows the
group to function efficiently and productively. Russell began by suggesting a
list of five simple guidelines:

z Each person is given equal time to talk.


z The listener does not interrupt, paraphrase, analyze, give
advice, or break in with a personal story.
z Confidentiality is maintained. (The listener doesnt talk
about what the talker has said to anyone else.)
z The talker does not criticize or complain about the listener
or about mutual colleagues. The talker is to speak from his
or her own experience.
z The listener will ask the talker for permission to clarify or
ask a question about what the talker said.

These five ideas served as our guidelines until we were ready to customize
our own.

Dialogue for Understanding


The last step was to provide a scenario in which dialogue would be
useful and to model what a sample dialogue might look, sound, and feel like.
Russell and I modeled a two-way dialogue. He talked for two minutes, and
I followed the guidelines, giving my undivided attention, listening, and not
interrupting. At the end of the two minutes, he described what it felt like to
have the luxury of uninterrupted time to reflect and speak, and I described
the luxury of being able to listen without being expected to speak. After
answering a few questions, everyone broke into pairs.We gave them a famil-
iar topic and told them to each take turns as a speaker and a listener. Each
round took two minutes. The results were both surprising and productive.
Our group members did not realize how quickly they would experience
the power that comes from good listening and uninterrupted speech. The
excitement was palpable. Though we recognized we had only scratched the
surface of changing our habits, we knew we had achieved a positive begin-
ning.The groups first assignment was to spend some time over the next few
weeks in pairs, practicing dialogue with topics relevant to our daily work.

Kohm-PrincipalsWhoLearn pages.in14 14 5/9/2007 12:14:16 PM


The Noisy Minority 15

We posted the five simple guidelines to remind us of our initial learn-


ings. Successful dialogue in pairs became comfortable. Our next goal was to
implement the same ideas in dialogue with the whole group. That was our
focus when Russell returned the next month. Listening to 15 individuals as
they took turns talking and not interrupting was much more challenging.
We had to set aside a variety of ineffective listening patterns, such as the fol-
lowing ones described by Ellison and Hayes (2002):

z Autobiographical listening: Occurs when the listener


begins to think of his or her own experiences.
z Inquisitive listening: Occurs when the listener begins to
get curious about parts of what the talker is saying that are
not relevant to the current topic.
z Solution listening: Occurs when the listener begins think-
ing of suggestions to solve the problem himself or herself.
(p. 36)

Talking about these patterns and naming them actually provided every-
one with an aha experience. We intuitively understood what they were
and how they sabotaged our ability to listen to another person talking. The
benefits of this new understanding were huge. We finally understood several
things:

z We do not understand the perspectives of others when we


are trying to break in with our own.
z We lose important contributions if we do not provide
every individual an opportunity to speak and an attentive
audience.
z We are a more powerful team when we have the input
of all members rather than just the input of a few loud
voices.

Skilled Discussion for Decision Making


The final piece regarding promoting productive conversations was to
learn the difference between dialogue and discussion.We had been using the
art of dialogue to understand everyones perspective on various issues. Dia-
logue is a divergent conversation: everyone is invited to offer input and, at the
same time, suspend judgment on the input of others. The process helps the
group reach a deeper understanding of a topic by looking at diverse perspec-
tives of its individual members. As stated in The Adaptive School (Garmston &

Kohm-PrincipalsWhoLearn pages.in15 15 5/9/2007 12:14:16 PM


16 P R I N C I PA L S W H O L E A R N

Wellman, 1999, p. 56), Well-crafted dialogue leads to understanding. This is


the foundation for conflict resolution, consensus, and community. Decisions
that dont stay made are often the result of group members feeling left out
and/or having their ideas discounted by the group. Dialogue gives voice to
all parties and all viewpoints. (See Figure 1.2.)

Figure 1.2
Dialogue

Dialogue is a reflective learning process in which group mem-


bers seek to understand each others viewpoints and deeply held
assumptions. The word dialogue comes from the Greek dialogos.
Dia means through and logos means the word. In this mean-
ing making through words, group members inquire into their own
and others beliefs, values, and mental models to better understand
how things work in their world (Garmston & Wellman, 1999, p.
55). The purpose of dialogue is to understand a persons think-
ing, not to make a decision. Participants focus entirely on another
person and ask questions to uncover thinking and mental models
that underlie that persons opinions. During the dialogue phase of
a conversation, participants refrain from either advocating for their
own positions or reaching a decision.

Our group had not yet learned how to use the art of skilled discussion.
Garmston and Wellman (2000) note:
The term discussion shares linguistic roots with words such as
percussion, concussion, and discuss. At its most ineffective, discussion
is a hurling of ideas at one another. Often it takes the form of
serial sharing and serial advocacy. Participants attempt to reach
decisions through a variety of voting or consensus techniques.
When discussion is unskilled and dialogue is absent, decisions are
often of poor quality, represent the opinions of the most vocal
members or the leader, lack group commitment, and do not stay
made. (p. 57)

In contrast to dialogue, skilled discussion is a convergent conversation with the


purpose of using the understanding reached through dialogue to make an

Kohm-PrincipalsWhoLearn pages.in16 16 5/9/2007 12:14:17 PM


The Noisy Minority 17

informed decision. To do so, members of the group try to see distinctions


among the various viewpoints, justify or defend their ideas, and eventually
reach consensus on a course of action.We had to learn to balance advocacy
and inquiry, as suggested by Peter Senge (Senge et al., 1994).
When balancing advocacy and inquiry, we lay out our reasoning and
thinking, and then encourage others to challenge us. Here is my view and
here is how I arrived at it. How does it sound to you? What makes sense to
you and what doesnt? Do you see any ways I can improve it? (Senge et
al., 1994, p. 253). In Team Leader Council, we learned various protocols and
sentence stems that helped each of us take a stand on an issue without turn-
ing the conversation into a debate. We also learned protocols for inquiry to
help us ask questions that didnt sound like interrogation (see Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.3
Protocols for Improved Inquiry

ASK OTHERS TO MAKE THEIR THINKING VISIBLE.


What to Do What to Say

Gently walk others down the ladder of What leads you to conclude that?
inference and nd out what data they are
operating from. What data do you have for that?

What causes you to say that?

Use unaggressive language, particularly Instead of What do you mean? or


with people who are not familiar with Whats your proof? say, Can you help
these skills. Ask in a way that does not me understand your thinking here?
provoke defensiveness or lead the wit-
ness.

Draw out their reasoning. Find out as What is the signicance of that?
much as you can about why they are say-
ing what they are saying. How does this relate to your other
concerns?

Where does your reasoning go next?

Explain your reasons for inquiring and Im asking you about your assumptions
how your inquiry relates to your own here because . . .
concerns, hopes, and needs.

Kohm-PrincipalsWhoLearn pages.in17 17 5/9/2007 12:14:17 PM


18 P R I N C I PA L S W H O L E A R N

Figure 1.3
Protocols for Improved Inquiry (continued)

COMPARE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS TO THEIRS.


What to Do What to Say

Test what they say by asking for broader How would your proposal affect . . . ?
contexts or examples.
Is this similar to . . . ?

Can you describe a typical example?

Check your understanding of what they Am I correct that youre saying . . . ?


have said.

Listen for new understanding that may


emerge. Dont concentrate on preparing
to destroy the other persons argument or
promote your own agenda.

Protocols for Improved Advocacy

MAKE YOUR THINKING PROCESS VISIBLE.

What to Do What to Say

State your assumptions and describe the Heres what I think, and heres how I got
data that led to them. there.

Explain your assumptions. I assumed that . . .

Make your reasoning explicit. I came to this conclusion because . . .

Explain the context of your point of


view. Who will be affected by what you
propose?

Give examples of what you propose, even To get a clear picture of what Im talking
if theyre hypothetical or metaphorical. about, imagine that youre the customer
who will be affected.

Kohm-PrincipalsWhoLearn pages.in18 18 5/9/2007 12:14:17 PM

Вам также может понравиться