In symphony organizations, how we communicate—or how we don’t—is very important.

Most of us would agree that the quality of group communications in many symphony organizations could be improved. We are all familiar with examples of communications difficulties in our organizations. Most prominent, perhaps, are communications breakdowns between members of the orchestra and management, whether in contract negotiations or otherwise. But communications difficulties often also exist within symphony constituencies. Sometimes, certain orchestra members can hardly speak to other orchestra members. Boards become so divided that factions can hardly sit together in the same room. Staff communication tensions can lead to near administrative dysfunction. And we all are familiar with communications difficulties that can exist between executive and music directors.

As human beings, we develop and carry into interpersonal interactions and communications a set of assumptions about life in general, the world around us, our experiences and our work, and the like, all of which become part of our identity. We vigorously defend these assumptions when they are challenged, both consciously and unconsciously, whether with words or with body language. Our assumptions are based on past thought; they are deeply embedded in our memory. For each of us, they are "givens," or "truths."

When we communicate with others, these assumptions operate in our minds. A group "discussion," in fact, consists of everyone in some way presenting his or her "opinion." Discussion literally means "breaking things up," and involves everyone presenting a different point of view, with each being analyzed and compared. By reason of authority and power, some "opinions" or "viewpoints" are given more weight than others. Maybe through "negotiation," tradeoffs are reached and differences temporarily resolved.

Fresh, collectively developed insights and creative solutions rarely emerge. Too often, we come away from a discussion dissatisfied to some degree. Rarely is everyone heartily enthusiastic. Few, if any, fundamental changes in relationships or action result. Discussions can become "debates" with "winners" and "losers" ("debate" literally means "to beat down"). Discussions are often characterized by hard-hitting and conflicting points of view—after all, the word "discussion" has the same root as "percussion" and "concussion."

Discussions often don’t get to the bottom of things. They don't get into serious, very personal, underlying assumptions. We talk around or avoid certain lines of inquiry. Why? Because some opinions and beliefs we hold are so nonnegotiable, so untouchable, so unquestionably self-evident as "truth," that they are just not open for review. We strongly hold these opinions; they are a part of our persona. We find it very difficult to expose them to evaluation by others.

Thus, the real, underlying meaning in what we are saying is often obscured. Our meaning is based on key assumptions which we do not reveal. As a result, there are many times that we leave discussions with feelings of frustration, if not anger, because the whole story—including our own—was not really out on the table.

The word "dialogue" comes from "dialogus," which literally means "through the meaning of words," or more imaginatively, "a stream or flow of meaning among communicators." Dialogue might more expansively be defined as a process of human communication and interaction in which the basic assumptions of participants are revealed, suspended, shared, examined, and appreciated as to their meaning. During this experience, "thinking together" takes place, new understandings are realized, new possibilities are envisioned, and more complete knowledge is created and shared among all participating.

Patterns of "dialogue" rather than those of "discussion/debate" characterize the intergroup communications found in highly effective organizations. Shifts from discussion/debate patterns to more dialogue-based communications clearly characterize the organization change which is taking place in some symphony organizations. A careful reading of these organizations’ "stories," as chronicled in recent issues of Harmony, will reveal when "dialogue" began to replace "discussion/debate." We hope there are other symphony organizations where this process is emerging.

Can symphony organizations begin to bring "dialogue" into their group communication processes? Can "dialogue" begin to be a part of an "organization’s culture?" Can people and groups get training in how to "dialogue"? Based on various readings, the answers appear to be "yes." There are facilitating consultants in this field, and an abundance of good source materials (see a partial listing below).

Here are some key concepts underlying the "dialogue" process, and some sustaining procedures:

• There is no (or minimal) agenda, no leader, nor any intended conclusion—the communication process is open-ended.
  
• Participants are all equal; each brings to the interaction his or her experience, which is equally legitimate with that of other participants. To symbolize this equality, participants quite often sit in a circle.
  
• It's open and free for each participant to express any point of view, argument, position, or other form of expression—to share in-depth opinions, beliefs, and feelings—or to be silent.
  
• When basic assumptions/opinions are revealed, their meaning is examined, shared, and appreciated by all participants—those holding them and those not—without reaction, without believing or disbelieving, without anyone convincing anyone else of the rightness or wrongness of such opinions.
  
• Moving toward dialogue can be nicely initiated by talking about its meaning.
  
• It takes time for a group to reach "an interactive dialogical state." A certain level of trust needs to be established, which the emergence of true dialogue will then enhance over time.
  
• A group seeking to experience and maintain profound dialogue usually needs therefore to meet regularly over a period of time.

Reading List

Dixon, Nancy M. Perspectives on Dialogue: Making Talk Developmental for Individuals and Organizations. Center for Creative Leadership, 1996.

Isaacs, William N. "Taking Flight: Dialogue, Collective Thinking, and Organizational Learning." Organizational Dynamics, Fall 1993, pp. 24-39.

Schein, Edgar H. "On Dialogue, Culture, and Organizational Learning." Organizational Dynamics, Fall 1993, pp. 40-51.

Purser, Ronald E. "Discovering the Conditions Conducive to Social Creativity: A Group Experiment in Dialogical Inquiry." Unusual Associates, A Festschrift for Frank Barron. Edited by Alfonso Montouri, Hampton Press, Chapter 25.

On Dialogue (transcription), Ojai, CA: David Bohm Seminars, 1990.