True Dialogue (Part 1 : a proposal)

In 2011 February we did a public program named “Mind your Business – Mend your Business” in Indore with support of Shri Yogesh Jain of Niche Quality Solutions. Around 15 participants from various business concerns were there and Mr. Akshayakumar Mankad , former head of operations of TATA Motors was there as an observer. The idea behind the program was to highlight that the leaders in the organizations need to be Business focused than organization / product focused and to show that Business acumen is an elusive issue. Fairly the point has been driven into the minds of the participants.



As a sequel to the program we had to visit one of the participants’ Shri Sameer Golwalekar, a multidimensional personality having interests in multitude of subjects. Our discussions wandered into many topics such as world history, Indian culture, Current business scenario, European psychology, J Krishnamurthi etc. At the end of the discussion he presented us with a book titled “On Dialogue” written by David Bohm, Professor of Theoretical physics. The specific choice of the gift was not random, it was after understanding the methodology, intention and service that we provide to the Business fraternity, that he suggested that we must go through this tome.

The book had about forty pages but each sentence was rich with meanings and insights that are unusual to find. I finished reading the book on the flight back to Kochi. The amazement was a Phycisist writing a book on tackling the social issues and an instigation of pride that we hold similar lines of thought. The book definitely enriched our Business Strategy workshops and (We both Yogeshji and me ) thank profusely Shri Sameer for this invaluable gift.

The summary and highlights of the book as I understand is provided in this series of blog. His own words are provided in most of the occasions and I have tried my best not to give my own interpretations. Wish you all an enjoyable read.

David Bohm, while researching the lives of Einstein, Heisenberg, Pauli and Bohr, made a remarkable observation. He noticed that their incredible breakthroughs took place through simple, open and honest conversations. He observed, for instance, that Einstein and his colleagues spent years freely meeting and conversing with each other. During these interactions, they exchanged and dialogued about ideas which later became the foundations of modern physics. They exchanged ideas without trying to change the other's mind and without bitter argument. They felt free to propose whatever was on their mind. They always paid attention to each other's views and established an extraordinary professional fellowship. This freedom to discuss without risk of interpersonal damage led to the breakthroughs that leaders of all sort today take for granted.

Dialogue - A proposal

For David Bohm the word "dialogue” gives an image of a river of meaning flowing around and through the participants. Any number of people can engage in Dialogue - one can even have a Dialogue with oneself - but the sort of Dialogue that Bohm is suggesting involves a group between twenty and forty people seated in a circle talking together.

According to Bohm , Dialogue is a way of exploring the roots of the many crises that face humanity today. It enables inquiry into, and understanding of, the sorts of processes that fragment and interfere with real communication between individuals, nations and even different parts of the same organization. In our modern culture people are not able to talk together about subjects that matter deeply to them. Solution to the fragmented communication, Dialogue is what Bohm proposes.

In Dialogue, a group of people can explore the individual and collective presuppositions, ideas, beliefs, and feelings that subtly control their interactions. It provides an opportunity to participate in a process that displays communication successes and failures. It can reveal the often puzzling patterns of incoherence that lead the group to avoid certain issues or, on the other hand, to insist, against all reason, on standing and defending opinions about particular issues.

Dialogue is also a way of observing, collectively, how hidden values and intentions can control our behavior, and how unnoticed cultural differences can clash without our realizing what is occurring. It can therefore be seen as an arena in which collective learning takes place and out of which a sense of increased harmony, fellowship and creativity can arise.

Because the nature of Dialogue is exploratory, its meaning and its methods continue to unfold. No firm rules can be laid down for conducting a Dialogue because its essence is learning - not as the result of consuming a body of information or doctrine imparted by an authority, nor as a means of examining or criticizing a particular theory or program, but rather as part of an unfolding process of creative participation between peers.

A Dialogue is not concerned with deliberately trying neither to alter nor change behavior or to get the participants to move toward a predetermined goal. Any such attempt would distort and obscure the processes that the Dialogue has set out to explore. Nevertheless, changes do occur because observed thought behaves differently from unobserved thought. Dialogue can thus become an opportunity for thought and feeling to play freely in a continuously of deeper or more general meaning. Any subject can be included and no content is excluded. According to Bohm Such an activity is very rare in our society.

Characteristics of Strategy meetings with the key people of an organisation (Part 1)

By now I have facilitated more than 100 sessions on development of Business strategy and I see some common occurings / patterns in most of the sessions. The observations and experiences are given below.......

• The development of suitable / appropriate strategic options often require novel perspective. Catching the novel perspective sometimes is the most difficult and time consuming part in strategy devlopment


• Many in the organisation view strategy and execution are two different and sometimes even go to the extent that they cannot co-exist.


• Real strategy making requires inputs and contributions from various members of the team. But the top management has the tendency to act as an apex body and take a stand point 'do as I/we say ". This disconnects many employees from the business.


• Strategic information is often forgotten amidst new information pertaining to daily operations. This makes people to be fire fighting than doing the important.


• Many times it requires the key people to make difficult decisions, which they postpone thinking better decision can come as time passes by.


• Many important key points need to be taken into account from the business perspective. But many key people think only in specific functions such as finance, production, accounts, sales , HR etc. They think of doing the job well and not winning the business.


• There is gross disagreement exists among key players on basic assumptions regarding the future of their business.


• The strategy need to be communicated to the employees convincingly, but little time and effort is spent on making the strategy simple to communicate.


• Difference of opinion among the key players regarding the strategy escalates into personal conflicts at a later stage.


• The key players fail to help the employees feel that strategy is something worthwhile to pursue, to identify and to feel proud of.

contributed by : Sasikanth Prabhu

Unconventional Learning Program

Today, one positive thing is that the top management has begun to recognize the promise of sustainable growth hinges on the human beings (the key people) and not the technology or finance. Their key people’s knowledge, understanding and learning are the organization’s sacred assets. When it comes to breathing life into strategic initiatives, the key people are the ones who hold the power.

Creating a “learning oriented organization” to fulfill the growth needs has proven to be devilishly difficult.

If we read through the media we find that, the quest for employee-driven business growth is reaching a near-feverish pitch. Many organizations are looking for programs that will guarantee people’s commitment and engagement in the organizations goal. Often, sought after programs are Certifications, Computer based learning, Soft skills training, Offsite simulation programs etc. We have even found that some companies are intoxicated in conducting such programs.
Recently we asked one of the business owner of a Rs.40 crore company owner (our client too), what role does he play in the organization primarily. He said he spends a lot of time in HR development, developing people skills and attitudes. He is of the opinion that only if people’s attitude change he can go for business expansion / growth.

Sure, such programs are sexy and create a surge in the enthusiasm of the participants. But they are, after all, merely tools that offer no magic on their own. In factual terms, they do not seem to generate knowledge, commitment or enthusiasm in a sustainable way. For getting employees’ commitment and application of their skills the top management needs to begin the process elsewhere.

The challenge, here, is not “how do we get employees to learn.” Rather, it is “how do we create a situation in which they can use their own powerful and innate abilities to apply.” Notice the important difference between the two orientations. Organizational training ceases to be something we “do to” employees.

Instead, facilitators become triggers of a latent, collective power that may be harnessed and directed towards our organization’s shared goals and aspirations. The equation is simple. To unlock the power of widespread transformation, simply embrace some new assumptions. Immerse learners in experience. Welcome mistakes. Discover what works. Apply it to reality.

Though this later method of promoting learning in the organization is effective and invaluable, but the challenge is…. this service of learning facilitation is difficult to sell and it doesn’t have the boundaries and content structure of the other learning tools. The decision maker himself needs to be a learner and go beyond his/ her own thresholds of fear to subscribe for this method.

It is worth taking the risk…. The outcomes are unpredictable but valuable sustainably.

contributed by Sasikanth Prabhu

Mentoring Redefined

What next after learning. World has identified mentoring and coaching as successor to learning. Indian history however is replete with examples of mentor – mentoree relationship. If we start from understanding Eklavya – Drona, to Upmanyu and Maharshi…, to Gandhiji and the three monkey symbol everyone signifies a befitting mentor-mentoree relationship.
So what is mentoring. To start understanding, we should look into above relationships. There exists a role model, a person interested in role model, the role model himself inactive in contributing physical development of given person and we have perfect mentor-mentoree relationship.
Again, mentor is essentially a good thinker and mentoree interprets. Mentoree picks up the signal and interpret it in his own way.
If we extend this line of thinking, Karl Marx would qualify as mentor for communism where in possibly he himself might not have practiced communism, it is the mentoree (here leadership of a country or a large part of world), who took the cue and interpreted it in its own way. This is one mentor-multiple mentoree situation.
For Example collective US thinking is mentor, and the rest of the world as mentoree. Now the interpretation of mentoree for the given mentor is different. The mentor here throws some thought, jargons and world tries to understand, internalise and adopt it. The ones who are reactive to it are interpreting it differently but that does not cede the mentor position of U.S., that is thinkers – OF THE WORLD. This should qualify for multiple mentor-multiple mentoree relationship. But once they themselves self profess to be mentors and try to dominate the thought process they cede to be called mentors.
Mentoring is a happening phenomenon and not a doing phenomenon. There have been forms of mentoring exercises in companies and as consultancies but truly speaking mentoring is just not possible. There are cases when a person assumes role of grooming, training, transforming another person but these do not amount to mentoring.
So equivalent to learning, a mentoree has to be interested person and have drive to interpret the deeds, saying and vision of mentor to develop himself.
It is at best judicious form of learning from focussed source. The mentoree has the right to choose right appropriate mentor.
In mentoring a person unknowingly help someone (mentoree), having no agenda of his own, with his personal, professional or career development.
In school days, a teacher has some influence on student. If this influence continues even after schooling to various other walks of like, the teacher graduates to a mentor. Here, student (mentoree) takes the cue from the life style and thinking of teacher and then transforms himself accordingly. Thus mentor-mentoree relationship is outcome of years of exchange and trust build-up. Any shortcut is unpalatable.
Mentoring is indirect learning. Mentor can never be a mentor if he guides explicitly to the mentoree. Mentor’s job is to think and present his viewpoint. The interpretation is solely mentoree’s. If the two discuss together to refine the thought process or develop understanding the mentor-mentoree relationship is over, it then forms discussion group, guide, coach, etc.
Essentially, it is the ownership which is of prime importance. The ideas of both mentor and mentoree are original and fully owned by themselves.
Going by transactional analysis, mentoring is adult-adult relationship. Any other transactional state would qualify for something else.
The crux of success of such an indirect, passive relationship lies only in OK-OK position of both mentor and mentoree.
So a person may be christened mentor only after another person (mentoree) experience or feels OK by the mentor thought process and aligns himself accordingly. So, mentoring is one relationship which is the outcome of a process and does not lead to initiation of a process. Any process after establishing this relationship should not be qualified as mentoring relationship.
The world will be at loss in defining such abstract phenomenon. Because as per the above paragraphs mentoring ceases once it is established. So for a mentoree mentor should be changing with time.
A mentor in given time cannot hold mentor status
1. After being understood as mentor,
2. Ceases to remain mentor once it dominates thinking pattern of mentoree instead of vitalizing it,
3. Does not add value indirectly to mentoree, direct value addition would be termed anything else, not mentoring.
Mentoring and guiding is different from each other…
To learn from a mentoring is abstract form of learning wherein a person matures into learning from directly available sources of books and other hardware, to judicious interpretation of deeds and saying of mentor he has so appointed (It may be mock monkey statue as earlier stated). A person may refine himself by being in touch with mentor. But mentor never states things or does anything for the sake of mentoree.
Mentoring is then in essence a more matured form of learning from observing and believing. It therefore is superior to learning from indirect sources of learning like books, videos, etc. Moreso, it’s the perception of an individual which is more important because two different person from the same role model (Mentor) may learn two diametrically things altogether.
A case in point: the role model played by our film heroes motivate some children and even grown-ups to go for violence, crime-ideas, womanising, boozing or some form of malpractices. Can it be called mentoring relationship? I feel no, because here the mentoree is not thinking, and interpreting with his understanding..…
Again, even if two person are in regular contact with each other, mentor-mentoree relationship may exist, the pre-requisite remaining indirect influence of mentor on mentoree to ignite thinking in mentoree as well.
There has been a discussion on how to manage such a relationship. West has designed programmes and methodology.

The experiments in west on mentoring dwells upon mentoring arena.
Accordingly, a mentoring arena is the space that is established each time we agree to mentor somebody: the space in which a mentoring transaction takes place. The distinction between arena and transaction is because there are many different kinds of mentoring transaction: sometimes we give advice, some-times we coach, sometimes we just listen, sometimes we give feedback, sometimes we challenge, sometimes we counsel. Each of these specific transactions can legitimately occur in the mentoring arena. A mentoring relationship allows this arena to become more clearly defined, to develop and to mature.
of betterment of mentoree, its mentoree’s capability to extract best out of mentor. The professional relationship which is touted is at best not mentoring and at worst is brain washing (?).
On the other hand a person like Smt. M. Padmanabhan, who I have never met is a role model for running a school, more in handling of children in Montessori classes. The effect has come from stories which goes round like her presence during children alighting from bus, banning slapping and canning in school, doing rounds in kitchen and above all being friendly with children. Today she is mentor to all her children who call her BIG MADAM and probably manifest her deeds in many forms in their life.


contributed by Yogesh Jain

Significance of Informal learning

For most people, at least the formal learning path ends with a degree, a post graduate degree or a doctorate from a reputed institution. Only people in the academic or core research institutions pursue formal learning further to highest degree attained. There are millions and millions of job holders who often may not be able to pursue formal education once they enter the work world. They will have jobs lined one after the other and genuinely there is no scope for them to go back to school and learn further. But Alvin Toffler made a prophecy that the literate of the 21^st century is one who can learn, unlearn and relearn.

The modern day work environment demands learning on day today basis. The job holders need to develop the skill of informal learning.

More than 70% of the learning experiences in the workplace are informal or accidental in a work place. Most often these learnings are not sponsored by the HR Department or the employer. Informal learning is continuous, holistic, effective and transferable, arising from daily events at work place. Informal learning emerges from the spontaneity and serendipity of interactions with men or machines. It happens everywhere, in a shop floor, in a meeting, in a laboratory, in the field with the customers or even while working alone.

Research by a consulting company indicate that more than 60 percent of the total learning by a job holder come from on the job experience and the social interaction with the co-workers.

Then why are we not valuing it or even acknowledging it (informal learning)?

Perhaps there is paradox: informal learning cannot be scheduled or planned but it occurs. All we need to do is acknowledge its presence, value the learner, liberate the organizational processes from red tapism, promote and nurture a learning culture, encourage informal social dialogues (fertile dialogues among job holders etc.

The job holders will find it very interesting if informal learning is captured and rewarded. Informal learning will increase job holder confidence, enthusiasm, feeling of security, personal growth, a sense of community, and rewarding relationships. Are there any better reasons needed to initiate informal learning in all?

Contributed by Sasikanth R Prabhu