“Changes happen by listening and then starting a dialogue with the people who are doing something you do not believe is right.” – Jane Goodall. There are lots of critiques who argue that dialogue can precisely transform the organisational culture and learning methods. Dialogue is a mutual understanding among the people and empowering them by letting speak and hear (Senge et al. 1999). Dialogue is a controversial subject that generally covers entire communication channel of an organisation (Schein 1993). However, dialogue has been an argumentative communication method that is least comparable to traditional approach of communication. Therefore, Schien (1993) suggest that in order to balance communication and exchange information, ‘dialogue is not only different form of many techniques that have been proposed before, but also that it has considerable promise as problem solving and problem formulating.’
Communication is integrated with an organisation to flow messages and information from top to bottom and vice versa (Tourish, D & Hargie, O 2009) where dialogue acts as a part of bringing up information, frustrations, ideas, present scenario that highly influence firm’s active participation for positive change. According to the Eisenberg, E.M., Goodall, H.L. and Trethewey, A (2010:33) communication plays a role of ‘moment to moment working out of tensions’ in an organisation. Basically to achieve targets and objectives that has been vision and paved by a firm, communication acts as a main strategic tools and framework between creativity and human skills that results to welcoming reasonable information and ideas in front of mass employees. Apparently, each individual power of thinking is based on actions and interactions (Eisenberg, E.M., Goodall, H.L. and Trethewey, A 2010). However, the business of human action depends on a place where they stand. Literally, dialogues are the formations of human interactions and their creative methods of communication skills that entirely transform the looking pattern of organisational behaviour.
The main reason of controversies over dialogue is; people believe that dialogue has almighty power of changing entire concept of communications that completely relieves on the expectations to figure out main problems through interactions. In fact this is not the case; most of the people around the globe think that dialogue is a game of stressful, noisy and poor diplomats which is completely mindless (Eisenberg, E.M., Goodall, H.L. and Trethewey, A 2010), for comprehensive overview (see Langer, 1998; also view Morley, 1992). Moreover, people strongly argue that dialogue is a formation of typical communication where most of the leader do not take responsibility of other departments and rely on a concept of wining rather than learning. In order to clear the dilemma of learning, Argyris (1991) focus on single loop and double loop learning system of an organisation. For instance, Argyris (1991) delivers that in a single loop of learning system, people usually rely in a concept following typical ideas and forecast of a firm rather than knowing future benefits and how those plan going to affect and implement then after the consequences. Mostly, leaders and top level managers came up to narrow minded perceptions of learning rather than problem solving, therefore, people in a top level management considers decisions they have made are correct and they are never wrong after all positions they have gained through hard struggle and lots of hustle. Their experiences and time frame of struggle make them to think whatever they do indeed is true and they do not have to improve organisational culture and regulations. Likewise, instability and defensive nature of professionals has conquered doom loop that has extremely hazard internal environment and external environment as well. Jones (2002) enlightens that Mr. Andrew Haldane, head of financial stability state bank of England points out that the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document