Bohm Dialogue 101

INTRODUCTION

Famous scientist David Bohm has had a major impact on the field of organizational development, through his ideas about how people should communicate with each other in order to come up with new ideas.  He and the people he worked on this with came up with a meeting format which they called “dialogue.”  The idea was to get a few dozen people together and have a long meeting where everyone obeyed certain rules that guaranteed people would be able to share ideas freely.

“Bohm Dialogue” has been widely used in the field of organizational development, and has evolved beyond what David Bohm intended: rarely is the minimum group size as large as what Bohm originally recommended, and there are often other numerous subtle differences. Specifically, any method of conversation that claims to be based on the “principles of dialogue as established by David Bohm” can be considered to be a form of Bohm Dialogue. Those principles of “Bohm Dialogue” are:

1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the conversation. “…In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what to do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must have an empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to any conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It’s open and free” (Bohm, “On Dialogue”, p.18-19.)”
2. Each individual agrees to suspend judgement in the conversation. (Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn’t like, he does not attack that idea.) “…people in any group will bring to it assumptions, and as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will come up. What is called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that you neither carry them out nor suppress them. You don’t believe them, nor do you disbelieve them; you don’t judge them as good or bad…(Bohm, “On Dialogue”, p. 22.)”
3. As these individuals “suspend judgement” they also simultaneously are as honest and transparent as possible. (Specifically, if the individual has a “good idea” that he might otherwise hold back from the group because it is too controversial, he will share that idea in this conversation.)
4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals’ ideas in the conversation. (The group often comes up with ideas that are far beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the conversation began.)

Usually, the goal of the various incarnations of “Bohm Dialogue” is to get the whole-group to have a better understanding of itself. In other words, Bohm Dialogue is used to inform all of the participants about the current state of the group they are in.


HOW TO DIALOGUE

Dialogue can be injected into a conversation by following the principles of dialogue in chronological order:

1. Agree not to make any decisions in this conversation: This is the basic foundational step to initiating dialogue.
2. Agree not to judge any ideas as good or bad, or of being in relative worth to each other: Once you have decided not to make any decisions, you are under no pressure to value or devalue any ideas that emerge from the conversation.
3. Agree to be transparent about your ideas: Now that no one is passing judgement on the ideas you present, you can throw out your really interesting ideas that you have not yet presented because these ideas “weren’t ready” or “you like, but thought others might think are stupid.”
4. Agree to build on each other’s ideas: Now that new material is comming into the conversation, that material can be openly explored and developed within this conversation.  Because there is no need to judge any new modification as good or bad (because your group is not making a decision right now,) there is no need to defend new ideas you present, so ideas can develop freely within the group.

A word of warning here is that dialogue is strong medicine.  If dialogue is executed competently, you can be guaranteed new powerful ideas will emerge, and your group may or may not be ready for these new ideas. Getting good at dialogue takes skill developed through practice, and dialogue is generally more time consuming than other types of conversation.  Dialogue may not be appropriate in situations where decisons need to be made immediately.


INCARNATIONS OF BOHM DIALOGUE

Peter Senge in his book “The Fifth Discipline” (1990) recommends a type of dialogue that is based on principles he says originate with Bohm, and is part of his strategy to help groups become “learning organizations”.

Parker Palmer in his book “A Hidden Wholeness” (2004) seems to advocate a style of dialogue that is almost identical to what Bohm originally recommended. (Palmer calls his technique “Circles of Trust.”) Palmer uses his dialogue more for personal spiritual development than for business consultation.

Holman (1999) explains that Linda Ellinor has used “dialogue like conversation” to establish partnership in the workplace (essentially establishing informal workplace democracy):

“…there is a movement towards what we call shared leadership. Shared leadership refers to what happens as those practicing dialogue over time begin to share in the understanding of collectively held goals and purpose together. Alignment builds. Every individual sees more clearly how he or she uniquely shares and contributes to the output and end results. Formal leaders do not need to direct the activities of subordinates as much. Armed with greater understanding of the larger picture, subordinates simply take independent action when they need to without being dependent on feedback from their manager (p. 224).”

William Isaacs (1999) claims to be building directly on Bohm’s work. He goes into a many possible techniques and skill sets that can be used to view and enhance dialogue in a group. He focuses on a four-stage evolutionary-model of a dialogue (p.242-290):

1. Stage one is “Shared Monologues”, where group members get used to talking to each other.
2. Stage two is “Skillful Discussion”, where people are learning the skills of dialogue.
3. Stage three is “Reflective Dialogue”, which is approximately Bohm’s idea of dialogue.
4. Stage four is “Generative Dialogue”, a special “creative” dialogue Isaacs seeks for his groups.

Patricia Shaw (2002) distances herself from the rest of the Bohm-school of dialogue, stating “…I am not trying to foster a special form or discipline of conversation… Rather than inculcating a special discipline of dialogue, I am encouraging perceptions of ensemble improvisation as an organizing craft of communicative action” (p. 164). Shaw’s form of dialogue focuses on getting group members to appreciate the different roles each other can play in conversation, in the same way that jazz (improvisational) musicians appreciate each other’s unplanned contribution to a performance. Shaw’s dialogue variation shows that a simpler, less idealistic approach is possible. For her all conversations are on a continuum, a gray scale that ranges from the highest, purest forms of dialogue to the lowest command-and-control conversations. In this sense dialogue is a property a conversation can have more or less of.

All of the above authors and consultants are considered to be experts in “Bohm Dialogue” (amongst others.)   Some of these practitioners have made contributions and adaptations completely unforeseen by Bohm himself, making the subject of “Bohm Dialogue” much greater than the dialogue theory Bohm himself originally established. In general, the direction Bohm Dialogue seems to is evolving in is that “dialogue” is a quality a conversation can have more or less of (as could be ”discussion” or “debate”,) rather than a catagory that a conversation may or may not fit into.

REFERENCES

Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. New York: Routledge.

Holman, P & Devane,T. (1999). The change handbook: Group methods for shaping the future. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together: A Pioneering Approach to Communicating in Business and in Life. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.

Palmer, P. J. (2004). A hidden wholeness: The journey toward an undivided life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shaw, P. (2002). Changing conversations in organizations: A complexity approach to change. New York: Routledge.