IX Coach

Coaching approaches

Dialogue practice (Bohm and Isaacs)

Dialogue practice is a way of talking in a group where people set aside the aim of winning a point or reaching a decision, and look instead at how each person thinks. Its ideas come mainly from David Bohm, whose book On Dialogue sets them out, and from William Isaacs, who applied them to teams and organisations. Outcome research on dialogue sessions as these authors describe them is scarce; the closest evidence is a meta-analysis of intergroup contact in general (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006).

What it is

A dialogue session is a conversation in which a group puts aside the aim of deciding something or defending a position, and turns to how each person is thinking and which assumptions sit under what is said. People speak from their own experience, listen to others before replying, and pay attention to what the group is doing together.

It is different from debate, and from discussion that aims at agreement. In the tradition, dialogue is a way of thinking together rather than a technique for changing an individual's feelings, and it is usually practised in teams or groups who have to work with each other over time.

Where it comes from

Bohm's account of dialogue is set out in On Dialogue (Bohm, 2004). Isaacs's Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together (Isaacs, 1999) applies the same ideas to teams and organisations.

Edgar Schein wrote about dialogue in relation to organisational culture and learning in 1993 (Schein, 1993). That paper discusses the idea; it does not test a session format.

The principles underneath

Hold back the rush to conclude

Participants do not have to decide or defend a view, so the thinking behind each view can be seen before anything is settled.

Look at the assumptions in the room

Attention moves from who is right to the assumptions that shape what people say and how the group talks.

Listen to understand before replying

Each person is heard before the next person responds, so the group can build on what was said instead of trading positions.

Think together, not against each other

The aim is a shared picture the group can work from, not a winner.

How a session runs

  1. The group agrees a short set of ground rules, usually including that nobody has to reach agreement.
  2. Each person speaks briefly, from their own experience, about a question the group has chosen.
  3. Others reflect back what they heard before offering their own view, and the group pauses between contributions.
  4. When a point starts to repeat or harden into a position, someone names what is happening, and the group looks at the assumptions behind it.
  5. The session closes with each person saying what they noticed, not what should be decided.

When it tends to fit

  • A team keeps having the same argument and each side feels unheard.
  • A group needs to understand a disagreement before anyone can decide what to do about it.
  • You want to explore a difficult question with others without needing an outcome that day.

What the research shows

Evidence: Practitioner tradition — little or no outcome research

No controlled outcome study of dialogue sessions as Bohm or Isaacs describe them turned up in the sources checked. The sources checked were the books and Schein's 1993 paper, which discusses dialogue but does not test it. The nearest research is a meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory, the idea that contact between groups can reduce prejudice (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006). It bears on contact between social groups, not on dialogue as a practice.

Where the evidence is thin: The books describe the practice from the authors' experience and are not outcome studies. The intergroup contact research concerns contact between social groups, which is a different situation from a dialogue session.

Sources

  1. Bohm, D. (2004). On Dialogue. Routledge.
  2. Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. Currency.
  3. Schein, E. H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 40-51.
  4. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783.

Where it stops

Dialogue can feel exposing or stall when one person in the group has far more power than the others, or when the disagreement is about safety rather than ideas. In those situations a facilitator or a professional mediator is better placed.

It does not resolve personal distress or long-standing patterns. Someone whose difficulty is mainly private, or rooted in trauma, is better served by a qualified therapist.

Practices for this approach

Practice this with IX Coach

Try this practice