-SYST HIN PEGASUS Caer Reproduced win permission rom Pegasus Commanicatons, ine. APL-1815 NUMBER 1 DIALOGIC LEADERSHIP Isaacs BY WILLIAM N. hen Monsanto and American Home Products dissolved their intended merger last year, it was not due to a lack of strategic or market synergy, or to regulator intrusion. According to a New York Times report, the deal failed "because of an insur- mountable power struggle between the two companies’ chairmen. .." (The New York Times, October 14, 1998, p. C1), ‘Breakdowns in human interac tion and communication play a piv- otal role in organizational life. In the case of Monsanto and American ra + Without Movers ‘there is no Direction + without Opposers therela ntComection "the Adapted fom Ooi Rantor @ 1905 In any conversation, some people move—they inate Ideas. Other people folow—they complete what is said and ‘support what is happening. Stil others opp0se—they chal- lenge what is being said. And others bystand-—they provide perspective on what is happening on + Without Followers ‘there is no Completion * Without Bystanders Teno Perepective Home Products, the CEOs of the «wo companies had very different approaches to leadership. One spent his lunch hour playing basketball with employees. The other refused to move to the company’s new headquarters, preferring to stay in touch with key employees by email. The two leaders gradually began to question each other's motives and moves. For instance, when one of the chairmen recommended a candidate for CFO, the other circulated a memo aserting that this man would never fil the role. Each fele that the other was. undermining him and the company. They even- tually proved unable to work together, and the ‘merger fell through. ‘Sometimes appar ently successfil mergers also quickly show signs of strain. Eight months into their venture, Citi- group, the new amalga- mation of Travelers Group and Citicorp, fired James Dimon, the ‘man who acted as peacemaker between, and was assumed to be the heir apparent to, this firm's two co-chief exec utives. Dimon was ‘widely respected; his departure came not as a result of poor perfor mance but, as one man- ager put it,"corporate polities." Executives interviewed later said that the collapsed Monsanto and American Home Products deal was “not in the best interests of the share~ holders” and that Dimon's surprising cexit "was the best thing for the busi- ness.” Yet this kind of talk covers up more honest accounts about what happened. According to reports, the leaders in each of these situations hit awkward conflicts about a range of substantive issues: ultimate control in a“‘co-CEO” scenario, membership of important executive teams, and the timing of integrating disparate cul- cures and businesses. In the end, these TOOLBOX ‘ A Tale of Two Loops: The Behavior of "Success to the Successfur FROM THE HEADLINES . “Cooking the Books": The Downward Drift of Auditing Standards SYSTEMS STORIES ° ‘Steps Toward Organizational Learning: ‘The Swiss Post ‘SYSTEMS THINKING " WORKOUT ‘Online Shopping: Can the Hotiday Boom Last? CALENDAR 2~ Continued trom previous page people failed to find a way to talk and think together effectively to resolve these difficult issues Although we all may not be deal- ing with strained or failing multi- billion dollar corporate mergers, we are probably quite familiar with such difficulties in communication and trust and the way these can dramati- cally affect organizational perfor- ‘mance. So how do we create environ- ments that can transform these difficulties into successes? ‘This article explores how ‘“dia- logic leadership,” an approach that has evolved fiom the core principles from the field of “dialogue,” can lead to the creation of environments that can dis- solve fragmentation and bring out people's collective wisdom, ‘THE SYSTEMS THINKER™ ‘RibtonersDancite kor Sattore Lae onan kl Warn ORD Eset hay ary. ne ‘nvnery Rear tom En Rare nana Sr PO. ‘Shovormunnganent regen tewetay. rare ‘Sour dtnpenen Pa naaen wh pose ero ‘Thain we anaes ao elon "es STENS TER 150 105027201 EB vee evsrens teincen™ vou ‘The Concept of Dialogue In the new knowledge-based, net- worked economy, the ability to talk and think together well isa vital source of competitive advantage and ‘organizational effectiveness. This is because human beings create, refine, and share knowledge through conver~ sation. In a world where technology has led to the erosion of traditional hierarchical boundaries, and where former competitors (such as Exxon and Mobil) contemplate becoming. bedfellows, the glue that holds things cogether is no longer “telling” but “conversing” The term “dialogue” comes from Greek and signifies a “flow of mean- ing” The essence of dialogue is an inguiry that surfaces ideas, percep- ‘ions, and understanding that people do not already have. This is not the norm: We typically try to come to important conversations well pre- pared.A hallmark for many of us is that there are “no surprises” in our meetings. Yet this isthe antithesis of dialogue. You have a dialogue when you explore the uncertainties and questions that no one has answers to. In this way you begin to think together—not simply report out old thoughts. In dialogue people learn to use the energy of their differences to enhance their collective wisdom. Dialogue can be contrasted with “discussion,” a word whose roots mean “to break apart.” Discussions are conversations where people hold onto and defend their differences. The hope is that the clash of opinion will illuminate productive pathways for action and insight. Yet in practice, dis ccussion often devolves into rigid debate, where people view one another as positions to agree with or refute, not as partners in a vital, living relationship. Such exchanges represent a series of one-way streets, and the ‘end results are often not what people ‘wish for: polarized arguments where people withhold vital information and shut down creative options Although it may make logical sense to have dialogue in our reper toire, it can seem illusive and even a lide quaint. Yer the fact remains chat every significant strategic and organi- 40,.NO. 4 zational endeavor requires people at some stage to sit and talk together. In the end, nothing can substitute for this interpersonal contact. Unfortunately, much of our talk merely reinforces the problems we seck to resolve. What is needed is a new approach to conversa tion, one that can enable leaders to bring out people’ untapped wisdom and collective insight Human beings create, refine, and share knowledge through conversation. “Dialogic leadership” is the term T have given to a way of leading that consistently uncovers, through con- versation, the hidden creative poten ‘ial in any situation. Four distinct qualities support this process: the abil~ ities (1) 10 evoke people’ genuine voices, 2) to listen deeply, (3) to hold space for and respect as legitimate ‘other people's views, and (4) to ‘broaden awareness and perspective. Put differently, a dialogic leader is bal- anced, and evokes balance, because he can embody all four of these qualities and can activate them in others ‘An old story about Gandhi illas- trates this concept well. A man came to Gandhi with his young son, com- plaining that he was eating too much sugar. The man asked for advice. Gandhi thought for a moment and. then said,""Go away, and come back in three days" The man did as he was asked and returned three days later. Now Gandhi said to the boy,“You must stop eating so much sugae”” The boy's father, mystified, inquired,"Why did you need three days to say that?” Gandhi replied, "First, I had to sop cating sugar” Similarly, dialogic lead- ership implies being a living example of what you speak about—that is, demonstrating these qualities in your daily lie Four Action Capabilities for Dialogic Leaders ‘The four qualities for a dialogic leader mentioned above are mirrored in four distinct kinds of actions that a person © 1999 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 761.198.9700‘may take in any conversation. These actions were identified by David Kan- tor, well-known family systems ther- apist (See “Four-Player Model” on p. 1), Kantor suggests that some people ‘move—they initiate ideas and offer direction. Other people folow—they complete what is said help others clarify their chough o ‘what is happening. Sill others eppose—they challenge what is being said and question its validity. And oth- cers bystand—they actively notice what is going on and provide perspective con what is happening, ‘Watching the actions people take can give you enormous information about the quality of their interactions and can indicate if they are moving in the direction of dialogue or discus- sion, For instance, in a dialogic sys- tem, any person may take any of the four actions at any time. Although people may have a preferred position, ‘each individual is able to move and initiate, to follow and complete things, to oppose, and to observe and provide perspective. None of these roles is beter or worse than the oth~ ers. They are all necessary for the sys- tem to function properly. As people recognize these different roles and can act on this recognition, they begin to create a sequence of interactions that keeps the conversation moving toward balance, Ina system that is moving away from dialogue, people generally get stuck in one of the four positions. For instance, some people are “stuck movers”: They express one idea, and before that idea is established or acted upon, they give another, and another, making it difficult to know what to focus on. But perhaps most revealing of non-dialogic interactions are the ritualized and repetitive interactions that people fill into that systemati~ cally exclude one or more of the positions. In the Monsanto merger process, for instance, the two CEOs became locked in a dynamic where one would initiate an action, and the other would ‘oppose and neutralize it, Ieading the other to push back even harder. The conflice eventually escalated to the point where it sabotaged the deal © 1999 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS. ‘An intense move-oppose cycle between two high-powered players like this one often prevents others fiom falflling their roles as, “bystanders” and “followers.” The bystanders, who can see the ineffec- tive exchange, often become “ci abled,” imagining that no one wants them to identify what is happening So the knowledge they carry is los. ‘At the same time, people who might otherwise be inclined to follow one side or the other to help complete ‘what is being said cend to stay on the sidelines, for fear of getting caught in the cross-fire. The result is that the interaction remains unbalanced. The quality and nature of the specific roles ean often cause difficul- ties. For example, opposers are gener- ally branded 28 troublemakers because they question the prevailing wisdom when people would prefer to have agreement. For this reason, others offen tune them out. This failure to acknowledge the value of the ‘opposer's perspective leads them to raise their voices and sometimes increase the critical tone of their comments. In such cases, people hear the criticism, but not the underlying intent, which is almost always to clar~ ify, correct, or bring balance and integrity to the situation. ‘A dialogic leader will often look for ways to restore balance in people's interactions. For instance, she might strengthen the opposers if they are weak or reinforce the bystanders if they have information but have with- held it. Genuinely making room for someone who wants to challenge ¢yp- ically causes them to soften the str dency of their tone and makes it more possible for others to hear what they have to say. Reinforcing and standing with those who have delicate but vita information can enable them to reveal it.The simple rule here i: Pay attention to the actions that are missing and provide them yourself, or encourage others to do so Balancing Advocacy and Inquiry ‘One central dimension in a dialogue is the emergence of a particular bal~ ance between the positions people ALANCING rN re Advocacy Inquiry This figure reveals another way to track the ‘action in a conversation and offer balance Into it. To advocate well, you must move ‘and oppose wal to Inquire, you must bystand and follow. advocate and their willingness to inguire inco their own and other’ views. Professors Chris Argyris and Don Schén first proposed the con- cepts of “advocacy” and “inquiry” to foster conversations that promote learning (see their book Orgeniza- tional Learning, Addison-Wesley, 1978 for a fuller explanation). In the vast majority of situations, advocacy rules People are trained to express their views as fast as possible. As it is some- times put, "People do not listen, they reload." They attribute meaning and impute motives, often without inguir- ing into what others really meant or intended. This was evidently the case in the merger situations described above. Bellicose advocacy stifles inquiry and learning. ‘The four-player model farther reveals the relationship between advo- cacy and inquiry (see “Balancing ‘Advocacy and Inquiry”)-To advocate well, you must move and oppose well; to inguire, you must bystand and fol- low.Yet again, the absence of any of the elements hinders interaction. For instance, someone who opposes, but fails to also say what he wants (Le. moves) is likely to be less effective as an advocate. Similarly, someone who follows what others say (“ell me ‘more”) but never provides perspectivemay draw out more information but never deepen the inquiry. Thus, the figure “Balancing Advocacy and Inquiry” reveals another way to track the action in a conversation and offer balance into it Four Practices for Leadership Balanced action, in the sense named here, is an essential and necessary pre- condition for dialogue. But it is not sufficient, Dialogue is a qualitatively different kind of exchange. Dialogic leaders have an ear for this difference in quality and are constantly seeking to produce it in themselves and oth~ crs. I have found that there are four distinct practices that can enhance the quality of conversation. These four correspond well to the four positions named above. For instance, you can choose to move in different ways: by expressing your true voice and encouraging oth- cers to do the same, or by imposing your views on others. You can oppose swith a belief that you know better than everyone else, or from 2 stance of respect, in which you acknowledge that your colleagues have wisdom that you may not see. Similarly, you can follow by listening selectively, imposing jatogic Suspending ~— Bystand {your interpretation of what the speaker is presenting. Or you can listen as a compassionate participant, ground ing your understanding of what is said in directly observable experience. Finally, you can bystand by taking the view that only you can see things as they are, or you can suspend your cer- rinties and accept that others may see things that you miss, In order to make conscious choices about our behavior, ‘we need to become aware of our own intentions and of the impact of our actions on others There are four practices implied here—speaking your erue voice, and ‘encouraging others to do the same; listening as a participant; respecting the coherence of others’ views; and suspending your certainties. Each. requires deliberate cultivation and development (see "Four Practices for Dialogic Leadership”). Listening. Recently, a manager in a program I was leading said, "You know, I have always prepared myself to speak. But I have never prepared myself to listen." This is because we take listening for granted, although it is actually very hard to do. Following swell requites us to cultivate the capacity to listen—sather than simply impose meaning on what other peo- ple are saying. To follow deeply is to Follow —Pe Listening Respecting Four practices can enhance the quality of conversation: speaking your true voice and ‘encouraging others to do the sama; listening 2s participant; respecting the coherence of ‘others views; and suspending your certainties. © 1909 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS blend with someone to the point where we begin to participate fally in understanding how they understand When we do not listen, all we have is our own interpretation Equally important is the ability to listen together. To listen together is to learn to be a part of a larger whole— the voice and meaning emerging not only fom me, but from all of us. Dia- logues often have a quality of shared ‘emergence, where in speaking. togetler, people realize that they have been thinking about the same things. ‘They are struck when they begin £0 hear their own thoughts coming out of the mouths of others. Often deci- sions do not need to be made; the right next step simply becomes obvi- ous to everyone. This kind of flow, While rare, is made possible when we relax our grip on what we think and liseen for what others might be think- ing. In this situation, we begin to fo ow not only one another, but the emerging Gow of meaning itself, Respeeting. Respect is the practice that shifts the quality of our opposing. To respect is to see people, as Humberto Mavurana puts it, ““egitimate others.” An atmosphere of respect encourages people to look for the sense in what others are saying and thinking. To respect is to listen for the coherence in their views, even ‘when we find what they are saying unacceptable Peter Garret, a colleague of mine, has run dialogues in maximum- security prisons in England for four years, He deals with the most serious, violent offenders in that country on a ‘weekly bass, Together, they have pro- duced some remarkable results. For instance, prisoners who will not attend any other sessions come to the dialogue. Offenders who start off speaking incomprehensibly and who carry deep emotional wounds gradu- ally learn to speak their voice and to liseen. Peter carries an unusual ability to respect, which reassures and strengthens the genuineness in others ‘This stance enables him to challenge and oppose what they say, without evoking reaction. I asked him to share the most important lesson that he has learned in his work. He said,"Inguiryand violence cannot coexist"True respect enables genuine inquiry. ‘Suspending. When we listen to someone speak, we face a critical choice. On the one hand, we can resist the speaker's point of view. We ‘can try to get the other person to understand and accept the “right” way to see things, We can look for evidence to support our view that they are mistaken and discount evi~ dence that may point to faws in our ‘own logic. This behavior produces what one New York Times editorial writer called “serial monologues,” rather than dialogue (On the other hand, we can learn to suspend our opinion and the cer- tainty that lies behind it. Suspension ‘means that we neither suppress what swe think nor advocate it with unilar- eral conviction. Rather, we display our thinking in a way that lets us and oth- cers see and understand it. We simply acknowledge and observe our thoughts and feelings 2s they arise without feel- ing compelled to act on them. This practice can release a temendous amount of creative energy. To suspend is to bystand with awareness, which makes itis possible for us to see what is happening more objectively. For instance, in one of our dia- logues with steelworkers and man- agers, a union leader said,""We need to suspend this word union. When you hear it you say ‘Ugh? When we hear it we say ‘Ah. Why is that?” This statement prompted an unprece- dented level of reflection between managers and union people. Our research suggests that suspension is one of several practices essential to bringing about genuine dialogue. ‘Voicing. Finally, to speak our voice is pethaps one of the most chal- Ienging aspects of dialogic leadership. “Courageous speech,” says poet David ‘Whyte in his book The Heart Aroused, “has always held us in awe." It docs s0, he suggests, because it is so reveal ing of our inner lives. Speaking our voice has to do with revealing what is rue for each of us, regardless of all the other influences that might be brought to bear on us, In December 1997, around a crowded table in the Presidential © 1999 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS, Palace in Tatarstan, Russia, a group of senior Russian and Chechen officials and their guests were in the middle of dinner. Things had been tense earlier in the day. Chechnya had recently asserted its independence through guerrilla warfare and attacks on the Russians. They had shocked the world hy forcing the Russian military to withdraw and accede to their demands for recognition as an independent state. ‘The Chechens were deeply suspicious of the academics and Western politi- cians who had gathered everyone in that room; the Chechens feared that, they were Russian pawns intent on derailing Chechen independence. The Russians, for cheir part, were fearful of adding farther legitimacy to what they considered a deeply troubling situation, Dialogic leaders cultivate listening, suspending, respecting, and voicing. And yet, despite all this suspicion, after a few hours people began to relax. Ac the first coast of the evening, the negotiator/facilitator of the ses- sion stood up and said,“Up until a few days ago, [ had been with my mother in New Mexico in the States. She is dying of eancer.I debated whether to come here at all to partic {pate in this gathering, But when I told her that I was coming to help facilitate a dialogue among all of you, in this important place on the earth, she ordered me to come, There was no debate. So here I am. I raise my gs to mothers." There followed a Tong moment of silence in the room, Tc is in courageous moments like these that one's genuine voice is heard. Displays of such profound directness can lift us out of ourselves ‘They show us a broader horizon and put things in perspective. Such ‘moments also remind us of our resilience and invite us to look harder for a way through whatever difficul- ties we are facing. When we “move” by speaking our authentic voice, we set up a new order of things, open new possibilities, and create, Changing the Quality of Action Dialogic leaders cultivate these four dimensions—listening, spending, respecting, and voicing—within them- selves and in the conversations they have with others, Doing so shifts the quality of interaction in noticeable ‘wavs and. in turn, transforms the results that people produce. Failing to do so narrows our view and blinds us to alternatives that might serve everyone. ~ For instance, in the Monsanto merger story, the CEOs did not seem to respect the coherence of each ‘other’ views. Each one found the ‘ther more and more unacceptable Although we do not know for sure, it seems likely that they did not reflect ‘on perspectives different ftom their ‘own in such a way that enabled them to see new possibilities. The paradox here is that suspending one’s views and making room for the possibility that the other person's perspectives may have some validity could open a door that would be otherwise shut. By becoming locked into a rigid set of actions, these leaders ruled out a qualitatively different approach—one that they could have made if they had applied the four dialogie practices described above. Dialogic leadership focuses atten ‘ion on two levels at once: the nature of the actions people take during an interaction and the quality of those interactions. Kantor’s model is a potent aid in helping diagnose the lack of bal- ance in actions in any conversation. By noticing which perspective is missing, ‘you can begin to reflect on why this is so and quickly gain valuable informa- tion about the situation as a whole. Dialogic leadership can appear anywhere, at any level of an organiza- tion.As people apply the principles outlined above, they are learning think together, and So greatly increase the odds that they will build che expansive relationships required to build suecess in the new economy. 8 ‘iam N enses the president of Oaiogos a CCamoridge, Mastachueats- based consuting fim, andi a lechrr at Mis Sloan Scho! of ‘Management. ial Is drawn fom is new ‘ok, Dialogue andthe Art of Tinking Together tobe pubtahed in May 1900 by Doublecay.