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.

Visioning

Now we have facilitated visioning exercise of more than 50 small businesses. Recently we did visioning program for a Automotive parts manufacturing Company in Dewas (Madhya Pradesh). This company was introduced by our friend Yogesh Jain who also became an ardent follower of School of Strategy and he runs his organisation Niche Quality Solutions Pvt Ltd (http://nicheqs.com/), which has long experience in providing Six sigma, Quality solutions to organisations in and around Indore. An year's experience in strategy workshops have given him an opportunity to develop an unconventional perspectives on business growth. He says " I have attended many management programs organised by institutions such as IMA.... but the business strategy workshops are different and they really add value to the organisation. There is a sense of fulfillment in taking part in these sessions". It is wonderful to work with him now... ...

During the meetings with business owners the question that comes up a lot in the work we do is the difference between vision and mission. At times we come across companies which do not bother to distinguish them at all: but...They have a separate Values Statement (thank goodness), but if you ask them to tell their Vision, and then their Mission, they’ll give you the same answer for both questions. So what is . difference? Does it matter? Yes it does! we will see visioning here .

• A strategic vision is usually thought to be solely future oriented. A vision provides an organization a forward looking, idealized image of itself.


• Moves outside the usual assumptions.


• Concentrates on the end goal, not the means to reach the goal.


• Followers gain ownership by developing the means (action plan).

Another benefit when done together with the people in the organisation is shared vision, which includes a present component.

• Vision is not a destination, but an intangible structure that surrounds us and guides our daily activities. From this perspective, a shared vision is a form of self-identity.

This definition of vision is a collective belief in what the organization can become. In this way it is similar to a truly desired wish for the future. If the vision is sufficiently broad it is enough for providing a framework for current decisions.

Regularly feedback can be employed for both corrective action and vision revision (interesting combination of words). If the feedback indicates a problem in the implementation and nothing amiss in the expected vision then the strategy and/or tactics can be altered to get back on track toward the vision. And if there is an indication that the vision is no longer realistic there is no problem with a shift in vision to a more workable vision. Normal planning cycles allow for such a step on an annual or half yearly basis.

ImplicationsWhat is unique about the organization's self-concept of itself? Something that would be missed if the organization were not to fulfill this vision.

What issues might arise among different stakeholders as this vision is realized?
Are organizational practices aligned with the vision? Are desired actions reinforced by performance metrics?

Putting an organization’s mission & vision in place requires working at all levels of the organization. Often, the effort is only made at the top of the organization with the expectation that employee commitment will follow. This assumption is far from true. It is recommended that a specific change program be put in place to develop a shared vision and common understanding of the organization’s vision and mission.

Building Social Capital - the collective feeling of 'We'

When we interact with the organisations in the initial phase of our facilitation , it most often becomes evident that people in the organisation build their plans and strategies of business on the assumption that others in their firm are ready and willing to be team players, act collectively to create or achieve something in the future for the organisation.

The observation, however, is that most often the organisation operates in a fragmented way. The technical people are pulling the resources in one direction, the marketing guys demand better attention to their requirements, finance have seemingly lopsided approach to their allocations and HR brings their own issues unconnected to business. The very resources meant for growing the business are pulling it apart.

In spite of these experiences, organisations are in the habit of assuming that once a good strategy is evolved at the top, people in the organisation will readily act, participate and contribute in a focused way according to the new found strategy.

An orchestra that is ready to play the same song does not come into being naturally but have to be worked out. Similarly every organisation has to create a pre-condition of shared understanding and shared commitment as they build the strategy. This is what is building ‘social capital’. This capital is the most prominent for a business organisation in the modern scenario and is even more scarce and important than the financial capital.

It is quirky to identify and create collective feeling of what “we” (i.e., the firm) should do if there is no strong sense of “we” – a mutual commitment and sense of group loyalty and cohesiveness. Similarly, it can be meaningless if the members of the firm are not committed to go on a journey together into the future.

Most organisations are clueless on how to create such feeling of ‘we’ the collective intelligence or the social capital. One attempt by many organisations to build social bonding is to celebrate the birthdays / anniversaries of the employees or having cultural get together etc on occasions of public festivities such as Onam, Christmas, Diwali etc. Secondly, on encountering inter-departmental turmoil, interpersonal conflicts and other employee behavioral issues, mostly companies resort to training programs on team building, leadership, communication skills, interpersonal skills, etc to the employees. Even after several training programs the conditions in the organisations do not improve which leads to cutting training budgets, snipping certain employees (even though they are valuable to the business), restructuring the organisation, abandoning the attempts to improve with ‘we-have-to live – with it’ attitude etc.

Actually there may be nothing wrong with the employees or with strategy or with the intentions of the business owners. The fragmented functioning in the organisation is somehow subtly connected with the view of ‘big picture’, a shared understanding and the commitment of the people in the organisation. These three are essentials for an organisation to work effectively. Training is not the solution, neither impersonal communications aides such as bulletin boards, manuals, sign posts, websites or awareness building programs. Top management fiat also is not effective in this situation.

But it is possible to develop a social architecture suited for each business / organisation. The only way known now is to lubricate the wheels and gears of existing social system. The traditional meetings need to be converted into animated dialogues. A facilitator who has the knowledge and skill of handling the group dynamics may be engaged to bring together the diverse stakeholders and facilitate to bring out the shared understanding and commitment. Engaging a facilitator for organisational planning is quiet unconventional, but it is needed and there is no other way known how to tackle the organisational fragmentation.

contributed by Sasikanth Prabhu

Organisational Commitment

At the moment the most common disappontment expressed by senior managers and business owners is that their employees / subordinates do not take ownership of the organisational processes.

As mentioned in earlier posts there are many reasons for repulsing the organisational decisions by the employees.

The business owner / senior manger must find ways to get commitment rather than compliance from the employees, if the managers want the employees to take ownership of the organisation.

Commitment is not compliance! It is not Loyalty! It is not involvement!

Compliance is seen when a manager orders the subordinate to do something and the latter carries it out.

Loyalty is a willingness to remain with the organisation.

Involvement is participation and intrest in the job minus dedication to something higher.

What is commitment then?

In Ken Matejka's words , Commitment is the act of being physically, psychologically, and emotionally impelled. It means the worker gladly gives up other options and makes the task the top priority in his life.

To get commitment from others in the organisation, the manager / business owner must turn into a leader. Commitment is a scarry term: people will be afraid of losing something or of getting harmed. Only a leader can remove that fear and show a reason to care for the organisation. Once an employee catches the big picture, the orientation towards the task changes dramatically and the ownership of the task is claimed. A clear, exciting organisational vision inspires people to commit their talents and energy to make it happen.

The maintenace of the ownership by the employees depends on the leading posture taken by the manger and the quality of rewards to the employees. This is yet another tool in making the employee own the task. I shall blog on it another time.

contributed by Sasikanth Prabhu