1

DIALOGUE:
THINKING TOGETHER RATHER THAN ALONE 1

BY LAWRENCE M. MILLER

We have a crisis of conversation. Too often what should be a mutual search for truth
turns into a hostile debate. The more television we watch, the more we expect this to be the
norm. Our ability to make effective decisions depends on our ability to listen, to gain
understanding, to explore ideas and to consider alternatives while getting beyond
preconceptions - in other words, to genuinely engage in dialogue in a spirit of humility and
common interest. Wisdom is not achieved through the combat of debate, but from the
exploration of dialogue.
Dialogue is a conversation of shared discovery.
In every conversation, there is a mysterious process by which we are forming attractions
and bonds of unity, or we are distancing ourselves, creating separation from the other person.
It is not simply a matter of what we say, and it certainly is not a matter of being right or wrong.
It is in the spirit of the discourse; the spirit of winning a contest by displaying superior wit; or
the spirit of shared discovery and appreciation. The first creates alienation while the second
unites the parties. One is an exercise in thinking and acting alone, while the second is an
exercise in thinking together. Those who are always thinking and acting alone are likely to be
less happy than those who tend to think and discover with others.

When to Invest in Deep Conversation

It is difficult to engage in the effort or take the time to think deeply together. We are all in
a rush. We rush by our friend’s crisis without stopping to engage them in serious conversation.
And, at work, we are too often in a rush, measuring our self by how quickly we make decisions
rather than by how well we think them through.
Are there times when an investment in gaining collective wisdom is worth the extra cost
in time and effort? And surely you would reply “Yes, I suppose that there are some occasions
that are worth that cost.” When we are investing millions in training and development and
quality improvement, we may ignore the biggest quality problem in modern corporations. That
is the quality of decision-making by senior management groups. Repeatedly, in corporate and
government history, there are cases of major decisions that completely overlook simple facts,
Dialogue: Learning to Think Together 2

leading to extremely costly mistakes. One petroleum company I was consulting with admitted
to me that they had invested approximately one billion dollars drilling for oil in a land-locked
African country. When they finally found oil, someone asked the obvious question “How are we
going to get it out of the country?” Incredibly, there was no possible way to transport the oil to
market. One billion dollars had been wasted because no one had asked an extremely obvious
question. These were smart people. How does that happen?
It happened because they had a very habitual pattern of conversation leading to
decisions. Someone studied the matter, made a presentation with a few overheads with facts
and figures, there were questions and answers, and they then decided. Someone was always an
advocate for a decision, and the decision would be a personal victory or defeat for that person.
Egos were on the line before the meeting ever began. Challenges to a proposition were
challenges to the person and within the group there were well formed alliances. Challenges
might fracture an alliance and cost one support in a following case. Every comment or question
was judged by everyone else in the room as to whether it was supportive or against the
proposition. Decisions took on the quality of sport, with teams lined up and a sure winner and
loser. They did not think deeply together, they did not seek to learn and explore together
without prejudice. They didn’t ask the “what-if?” questions that may reveal weaknesses. They
didn’t ask “what happens when we get there” and what are the possible challenges when we do.
It doesn’t take much imagination to see how the same failure of decision-making occurs in the
political realm.

The Roots of Dialogue

Much of the literature on dialogue stems from the work of David Bohm 2, a physicist who
thought deeply about the “wholeness” of our systems. He promoted a form of group dialogue
that would lead to self-awareness and insight, but not necessarily decisions or the use of other
problem-solving tools. In his view, a dialogue should continue without any time constraint or
any need to make a decision. I have spoken with several practitioners of dialogue groups and,
in general, they have conceded that his original form of dialogue is not practical in the business
world. Bohm was not a manager and did not have to integrate his ideas with the day-to-day
world of getting results faced by every manager. Yet, there is great value in the process he
developed and the potential to integrate dialogue with management decision-making.
The value that dialogue can contribute to management decision-making is two-fold:

• First, it can help us come up with more creative and higher quality decisions
based on unbiased listening and reflection on the views of others.

• Second, the process of dialogue creates unity within the group and shared
commitment to a decision. Many decisions fail, not because they were wrong, but

2 Bohm, David. On Dialogue. Rutledge. London and New York. 1996.

Copyright, 2021 www.LMMiller.com Lawrence M. Miller

Dialogue: Learning to Think Together 3

because they did not have the shared understanding and commitment of those
who were responsible for implementing the decision.
All Conversations Are Not Alike: From Debate to Dialogue
One understanding of conversation in a group is to think about the group as several
different people, individuals with different perspectives or ideas, each member of the group
sharing his or her ideas and the group deciding which idea is the best and moving forward with
that idea. With this understanding everyone is thinking alone, forming his or her own ideas and
opinions and then attempting to convince the others of the value of those ideas.
Group conversation can have the purpose of creating one collective mind. With this
understanding the individual members are not so focused on their own ideas, they are focused
on learning and exploring an issue and its meaning. They are less focused on convincing others
to accept their ideas. They are not trying to
“win”. When thinking together the members are
interested in encouraging and supporting the
ideas of others because those ideas become their
own. The objective is to create “collective
wisdom”, to find the best answer for the group.
It may be useful to define our terms.
Conversation will be used to describe all
interaction among a group of people in their
effort to reach understanding, or a decision
regardless of the quality or nature of that
interaction.
Debate is a conversation in which the parties assume opposing positions at the outset
and view the goal of the conversation to be the victory of their position over that of their
opponent.
Discussion is a conversation in which the goal is to reach a decision that both parties can
accept, and which may represent a compromise or combination of positions previously held by
the parties.
Dialogue is a conversation that explores the meaning and nature of an issue to create
insight and understanding on a deeper level. Dialogue seeks to gain the insight of all parties and
create collective wisdom, unity, or a
new way of looking at an issue.
It may be helpful to visualize
how we communicate with others.
The following triangle illustrates the
different mental frameworks from
which we engage in conversation. In
most conversations people are

Copyright, 2021 www.LMMiller.com Lawrence M. Miller

Dialogue: Learning to Think Together 4

thinking about their own ideas and how to persuade the other person to accept their ideas.
Unfortunately, the other person is doing the same. This defeats the opportunity for shared
understanding and may result in conflict. When we are in our own corner, thinking alone, we
are in a win-lose posture, searching for victory for our position at the cost of defeat for the
other person.
Think of the shaded area of the triangle as the locus of thought, from where you are
thinking. At the bottom of the triangle, we are in our own corner, thinking alone. The bottom of
the triangle represents debate, an all-too-common mode of discourse in our culture. Any night
on America’s talk shows, you witness the culture of debate, not dialogue. “Crossfire, from the
left comes the liberal, from the right comes the conservative, and may the best person win!” It
is interesting to examine the conversation and ask whether the two combatants ever share a
thought, ever acknowledge that the position of the other could be valid or worth considering.
Most often the two protagonists are listening carefully with an eye to disagreement. This
guarantees that neither can learn from the other. The very act of learning, of accepting or
appreciating the ideas of the other, would be regarded as an act of weakness or defeat.
The Corruption of Debate
When we are trying to win a debate, to have our ideas victorious over the ideas of
another, we listen to the other with an ear to exclude and label ideas in a way that makes them
unacceptable. During the time of the second Iraq war in 2003, a member of the country music
group the Dixie Chicks spoke out against the war. A conservative talk show host commenting
on this said to a guest “well you have to understand that these Hollywood types really hate
America and all that it stands for.” This interpretation of a young woman’s position against the
war is exactly the kind of listening and response that destroys the democratic process which
relies on dialogue to form understanding and consensus, rather than the victory of one group at
the expense of humiliating another. The young country music star was not a “Hollywood type,”
but was from Texas, the home of the President, and could never have had the thought of hating
her country. But by labeling her in this extreme way, by creating black and white distinction
between good and evil, it eliminates any possibility of understanding what her view was or
why she held it. It also creates the environment in which anyone attempting to understand this
person’s views is likely to be attacked for being soft or comforting those who “hate America”
and surely no good American would want to be in that position.
This type of discourse hardens the corners of the triangle and is the exact opposite of
dialogue. Debate creates discomfort with opposing views and attempts to lower the stature of
anyone who holds those opposing views. Dialogue creates a zone of comfort for others to
contribute without fear of being assaulted or insulted. Debate suffocates intellectual inquiry,
dialogue fuels intellectual inquiry. Debate creates or hardens distance or alienation between
the parties, dialogue creates connections, appreciation, and unity.
When to Practice Dialogue, Discussion or Debate
You are driving in your car and your child shout “Mom, there’s a McDonald’s. Can we get a
Happy Meal?” Should Mom now begin a deep and meaningful dialogue about why the child
really wants a Happy Meal, or the true understanding of a Happy Meal? I think not. Mom will

Copyright, 2021 www.LMMiller.com Lawrence M. Miller

Dialogue: Learning to Think Together 5

probably, and correctly reply, “No, it is almost dinner time, and we will be home soon.” End of
discussion and hopefully with no debate.
Our lives are filled with simple decisions and our concern is often for efficiency and not
depth of meaning. In team meetings at work, much of the time may be spent reviewing
numbers, brainstorming a cause or solution to a specific technical problem; or, deciding who
will fill in for someone who will be absent next week. These decisions do not require in-depth
dialogue.
Dialogue should be employed for questions of significance. Why are we organized the
way we are? Are we genuinely meeting the current and future needs of our clients? Are we
assisting each other in the development of our personal capabilities? Are we doing the best we
can to make this an enjoyable and fulfilling place to work? Why do we do this work at all?
These are important questions, and they are not matters of just choosing “A” or “B”. Rather,
they are issues with several levels of meaning and possible action. These are the types of issues
around which we should engage in genuine dialogue.
Dialogue is more appropriate when there is a great degree of shared purpose. The degree
to which we lack common purpose is the degree to which we are likely to remain at the bottom
of the pyramid, focused on our self, in pursuit of our individual needs. If we are focused only on
our personal needs our conversation will tend toward debate, and we will remain motivated to
win all we can.
The High Price of the Failure of Dialogue
One of the more amazing realities of recent corporate history is the much-discussed
collapse of the Enron Corporation. This failure can be described in many ways - a failure of
corporate ethics, poor strategic judgment, or outright stealing. But how did this happen? The
Board of Directors of Enron was highly regarded as a model of Board structure and
composition. Only two insiders served on the Enron Board. No corporation could have had a
more financially competent and experienced board. The list included a former Stanford
University Dean who was an accounting professor, the former CEO of an insurance company,
the former CEO of an international bank, a hedge fund manager, a prominent Asian financier,
and an economist who is the former head of the U.S. government’s Commodity Futures Trading
Commission. These were all extremely smart and competent individuals and all financially
sophisticated. Yet the members of this board have all claimed to have been confused by Enron’s
financial transactions and claim not to have understood the financial statements. 3 They were
all thinking alone.
How could this group of experienced and respected individuals look over a corporation
whose books were so complicated and confusing that no analyst could figure out where the
money was coming from or where it was going, and hundreds of deals were being done that
amounted to little more than a shell game of moving money and accounting entries around to

3 “What Makes Great Boards Great”, Sonnenfeld, Jeffrey A. , Harvard Business Review, September, 2002,
p.108.

Copyright, 2021 www.LMMiller.com Lawrence M. Miller

Dialogue: Learning to Think Together 6

give the appearance of profits where there were none? Why didn’t they inquire? None of them
understood the financial statements, so why didn’t they discuss this? Why weren’t they
troubled enough by this lack of transparency to insist on accounting statements and
explanations that they could understand?
Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, writing in the Harvard Business Review 4 on the Enron case said,
“We need to consider not only how we structure the work of a board but also how we manage
the social system a board actually is. We’ll be fighting the wrong war if we simply tighten
procedural rules for boards and ignore their more pressing need – to be strong, high-
functioning work groups whose members trust and challenge one another and engage directly
with senior managers on critical issues facing corporations.”
How Do Develop the Competence of Dialogue?
How do we develop the ability to engage in dialogue? What skills do we need to develop?
The following are the skills that will help us engage in dialogue. Simply stating them is a start,
but not sufficient. Managers and teams need skill development and training that develops these
as habits.
1. Practice Listening rather than Convincing:
When you walk into a debate your mind is set on convincing the judges or audience of the
superiority of your point of view. You plan your “arguments” and voice those arguments in the
most convincing manner possible. Your tone of voice conveys confidence if not certainty in the
correctness of your argument. The purpose of a debate is not for the parties to engage in
learning. Rather it is to convince the audience that one participant has a superior position and
has most skillfully argued that position.
When the motive of a conversation is
to search for meaning and to learn there
can be no thought of winning or loosing.
There is no external audience to convince
in a dialogue. You are the audience, the
team is the audience, and the purpose is to
gain knowledge and meaning and this does
not result from authoritatively arguing pre-
packaged positions. It derives from
listening and reflection.
There are many levels of listening. Of
course, there is the simple act of being
quiet and tuning in to the voices of others. But there is also the capacity to listen to what is
really going on, to listen to the story behind the words and faces. Each pained expression tells a
story. Each deep sigh tells a story. Each expression of impatience tells a story. At times it is

4 J. A. Sonnenfeld, Harvard Business Review, September, 2002, p.106.

Copyright, 2021 www.LMMiller.com Lawrence M. Miller

Dialogue: Learning to Think Together 7

worth inquiring as to the nature of that story. Sometimes it is valuable to simply seek insight by
imagining the story that each person has to tell.
Some time ago I fancied that I would become a “real” writer. I read a wonderful book, “On
Writing” by Ernest Hemingway, a compilation of his letters to his editor, Charles Scribner. In
addition to bemoaning his own trials and tribulations as a writer, he spoke of the awareness
required of a writer. He said that a writer is always writing, always forming characters and
imagining possibilities. When sitting in an airport awaiting his plane, the writer is studying the
face of the old woman across from him and imagining the life she has led, imaging who she is
going to visit, and what it must mean to her to visit this person. The writer can develop an
entire story by just staring at this person and imagining the meaning of her wrinkles, the cause
of the worried look on her face, or the reason why her shoes don’t seem to fit quite right.
According to Hemingway you become a writer, not because you know grammar or
sentence structure, but rather because of the capacity of observation and imagination. Consider
the young person walking through the airport with earphones plugged in, listening to his iPod.
Is he observing anything? Is he imagining the story on anyone’s face? And isn’t his life that
much poorer for the inability to imagine the story told by the rushed walk of the young woman
toward her plane; or the story told by the old man on the park bench? In our cities people walk
around plugged in to their iPhone or other devices, bumping into each, staring ahead as if they
can’t see, hear or recognize anyone. What are they listening to that is of such great value that it
is worth missing out on the sounds and stories of real life?
Dialogue requires the listening of the writer, the ability to hear the voice of the other
person, to listen to their story, to take pleasure in the details that give meaning to each story.
As you listen to another, go beyond what they are saying to imagine their story. How does
their story affect the members of their family? How do they feel in this situation? What do they
imagine about their own future? Where does their story go from here?
2. Practice Inquiring versus Acquiescing:
Groups that are formed around some ideology or political point of view are likely to be
extremely accepting of the views of its members, particularly when those views are expressed
by the person in power or expressed framed in the legitimacy of their ideology. Most
Washington “think-tanks” are comprised of individuals selected for their ideological
consistency, whether on the left or right. So you have a group of like minded people sitting
around all day talking to each other and then devising policies, writing books and articles.
Obviously, they reinforce each other’s views and they become more convinced of how right
they are because the group around them agrees. They should not be called “think-tanks,” they
should be called “acquiescing-tanks.” A “tank” that was designed to promote thinking would
assure the greatest possible diversity of opinion and a culture of sincere inquiry.
In a group of political conservatives someone might say “Well, as we conservatives all
know, the more we can reduce taxes the better.” In a group of political liberals someone might
say “You know we have to reign in the power of corporations.” And in both groups, everyone
nods their head approvingly, demonstrating their acquiescence. Such statements create an

Copyright, 2021 www.LMMiller.com Lawrence M. Miller

Dialogue: Learning to Think Together 8

assumption that then stifles creative thought. What if one said - “How can we increase the
power of corporations to provide better health benefits to their people?” Is this coming from a
liberal or conservative view or is it just an open door to think in a different and possibly
creative way. Dialogue requires questions that escape from the assumptions of ideological
views. Otherwise, rather than inquire into the meaning of things, the members of the group will
simply acquiesce to the “politically correct” point of view.
This acquiescence avoids the intellectual inquiry, the asking of questions that are the
fundamental tool of learning. Members of the Enron board acquiesced and failed to inquire. But
even the CEO, Ken Lay, who claimed not to have known what was going on, acquiesced to his
subordinates. In the WorldCom case, Bernie Evers also claims the “I-was-too-stupid-to-know”
defense, claiming he did not understand the finances. These CEOs are either dishonest or they
engaged in extreme, and self-serving acquiescence.
Questioning is the foundation of science. Without questioning there would be no science
or human progress. Inquiring minds, questioning minds, seek meaning, significance and
underlying truths. The ability to ask questions, to ask the simple question “why?” is the first
skill of acquiring wisdom. There is no more important member of a group than the person who
recognizes when to ask “why?” It is not at all unusual for groups to be headed off in a direction
that is not questioned, but at the same time, no one can explain why they are headed in this
direction. Jerry Harvey, in The Abilene Paradox 5, tells a wonderful story about a family sitting
on the porch one evening, in the sweltering heat of west Texas, and Pa asks what’s for dinner?
Ma then mentions a restaurant down the road in Abilene. Somehow, they end up in the car,
with no air conditioning, the dust blowing through the windows in 90-degree heat and
everyone is miserable, when Ma asks Pa, “Why the hell are you dragging us to Abilene
anyway?” To which Pa says, “I ain’t draggin’ you anywhere, you wanted to go to Abilene.” “Did
not” replies Ma. It turns out that no one in the car wanted to go on this trip. And the question
comes, how did they end up on the road to Abilene when no one wanted to go in the first place?
As Jerry Harvey, a college professor, tells it, he was sitting in his office one day when an
attractive young woman student came into his office sits down and looks rather depressed. Dr.
Harvey, concerned professor that he is, asked “What’s wrong, you look rather depressed?” And,
she replies, “Well, you’d be depressed too if next weekend you were marrying someone you
didn’t love.” To which he naturally responded, “Well, why are you marrying someone you don’t
love.” And she explained, “Well it was a moment of passion, and I couldn’t say no, it would have
broken his heart. And, he told his folks, and they called mine, and the wedding got planned, and
I can’t say no now. I just couldn’t do that to him.”
The next day Dr. Harvey was sitting in his office and a young man came in and sat down,
looking rather depressed. The ever-empathetic Dr. Harvey asked, “What’s wrong, you look
rather depressed?” And he replies, “Well, you’d be depressed too if next weekend you were
marrying someone you didn’t love.” To which he naturally responded, “Well, why are you
marrying someone you don’t love.” And he explained, “Well it was a moment of passion, and I

5 Harvey, Jerry. The Abilene Paradox. Jossey-Bass, New York, 1988.

Copyright, 2021 www.LMMiller.com Lawrence M. Miller

Dialogue: Learning to Think Together 9

couldn’t say no, I would have broken her heart. And, she told her folks, and they called mine,
and the wedding got planned, and I can’t say no now. I just couldn’t do that to her.”
Witness a young couple “on the road to Abilene.” Well, how do people get on the road to
Abilene, on a course that they don’t either support or don’t know why they are going there in
the first place? This is how a billion dollars got spent drilling for oil in a country with no way to
ship the oil to a market. This is how the entire board of the Enron Corporation ended up in
Abilene. Even country Presidents and their countries get on the road to Abilene.
3. Practice Suspending Judgment vs Speed of Judgment:
A judgment is something that comes “down” at the end of a “trial.” If a judge or jury
entered a trial with a judgment already in their mind, we would suggest that they be
disqualified. We ask judges and juries to suspend judgments, to hear all sides, to reflect and to
consider alternative explanations.
When we make decisions in groups, or seek understanding and learning, we are often
hindered by our tendency to judge quickly. There is an unstated value in our culture that
rewards quick decision-making. This is a natural remnant of the military culture of command.
On the battlefield, the officer was required to make judgments quickly in order to win a victory
or save the lives of his men. Dialogue or consensus decision-making would not have survived
the demands of the battlefield where victories were often won by fast and decisive action and
strict obedience by the by troops. The military did not want soldiers to ponder the “meaning” of
their actions. They could do that for the rest of their lives, but not while the bullets were flying.
Perhaps because the military was, for most human history, a male domain, it is entirely
possible that men came to associate the ability to make decisions quickly with “manliness.”
While delaying, pondering, considering alternatives in a reflective manner, may have become
more associated with woman. However, it evolved, it is certain that men in particular find the
ability to make decisions quickly an attractive characteristic and associate delay with
weakness. We are therefore, quick to judge.
One of the best qualities of a leader is humility. Contrary to the television image of the
charismatic leader, most corporate executives who achieve sustained superior performance are
not the demanding cheerleader. Rather, they are patient, and behave with humility. Jim Collins,
in Good To Great6, documents leaders who possess this quality of humility. He describes Level 5
Leadership: “We were surprised, shocked really, to discover the type of leadership required for
turning a good company into a great one. Compared to high-profile leaders with big
personalities who make headlines and become celebrities, the good-to-great leaders seem to
have come from Mars. Self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy – these leaders are a paradoxical
blend of personal humility and professional will. They are more like Lincoln and Socrates than
Patton or Caesar.” 7

6 Collins, Jim. Good to Great. Harper Business, New York: 2001

7 Ibid. pp. 12-13.

Copyright, 2021 www.LMMiller.com Lawrence M. Miller

Dialogue: Learning to Think Together 10

Humility is being open to the ideas of others. Humility is the ability to learn and change
course when the evidence points in a different direction. Humility is the capacity to suspend
judgment and listen to the voices of others.
Humility and suspended judgment are most important when it comes to how we present
our ideas to the group. It is important to listen to yourself as you present an idea. Is it
presented as a gift to the group for their consideration? Or, is it presented as your judgment
that you are now asking others to approve? Is it presented as an argument that should be
“right”? If it is the latter, you have attached your ego, your self worth, to your ideas. Naturally
then, you will defend your idea. If, on the other hand, you present your idea as a gift to the
group with the intention of letting go, allowing the group to take ownership and do with it as it
wishes, you will observe its transformation, its merger into the stream of thought and wisdom
of the group. Rather than the joy of seeing “your” idea adopted as the best idea, it is possible to
gain joy from seeing your idea contribute to the shared ideas that become the “group’s” final
decision or point of view.
4. Practice Unifying Appreciation vs. Dismissive Categorizing
“What do you expect from someone like her?”
We seek order in conversation as we seek order in life. To order our surrounding we
place things in categories: good or evil; friendly or hostile; left or right; with me or against me.
There are a hundred ways that we can categorize people, comments, or entire conversations.
How we categorize contributions to conversation will have an impact on our ability to enter a
meaningful dialogue.
When we hear a comment, we do not like, one that differs from our understanding or
point of view, we may tend to place that in a category or place the entire person in a category.
Imagine that you are meeting with a team of office administrators and you are discussing
how the team feels learning and development can be improved. A young woman who has been
employed for only a couple of months speaks up and says, with some hesitancy and emotion in
her voice “I thought people would be more friendly when I first came to work here. I thought it
would be more fun and people would help each other more.” The manager of this group,
somewhat uncomfortable with this expression of personal feelings and emotion may think to
himself, “Well, she just said that because she is young and inexperienced.” By placing the young
woman and her comment in the category of “young and inexperienced” it alleviates his need to
deal with her comment in a meaningful way. By categorizing this comment and the person, the
issue is likely to receive little serious consideration. Having taken the risk of speaking up, the
young woman will now feel exposed and if her expression is ignored or dismissed, she is much
less likely to offer her true feelings in the future.
How else could the manager have responded? Without judging the comment as true or
false, the manager could have expressed appreciation and looked for the value or truth in her
comment. For example, he could have said, “I know that it is important when you first come to
work that you feel that people want to help you succeed. It is always a bit scary starting a new
job. And I think you are making the point that we learn well, when we help each other, whether

Copyright, 2021 www.LMMiller.com Lawrence M. Miller

Dialogue: Learning to Think Together 11

we are new or old on the job. Is that right?” By acknowledging the truth or value in the young
woman’s comment he has created a unifying bond, the opposite of alienation. This appreciative
comment will make her more comfortable and more likely to contribute in the future; and, by
checking it out, by asking whether he has understood correctly, she will be able to acknowledge
or correct his understanding.
Every night on television we are bombarded with examples of dismissive categorization.
“Well, that’s because you’re a racist!” Well, that dismisses anything you may have to say! No
need to seek any further understanding. Or “You liberals (or, right wing extremists) always say
that and that’s why this country is in trouble!” It seems that most of the evening talk shows are
a shallow monologue by opposing parties, never acknowledging any validity in the views of the
other and continually categorizing the opponent to dismiss their views. This is the opposite of
dialogue. (Just because two people are delivering monologues, does not make it a dialogue.) It
only serves to reinforce the views of those who “know how those people think.”
5. Look at the Whole System vs. Fragmenting
In dialogue, rather than looking only at the immediate issue, the immediate
circumstances, consider the system around those circumstances. Insight is often gained by
making connections between parts of a whole. Our country, our community, and our company,
may be described as a “whole-system.” The ecology is a whole system comprised of numerous
interconnected and interdependent parts. One cannot understand the growth of a tree without
understanding the larger ecology of the forest, changes in climate, or animal species that
depend on the tree for survival. The study of ecology is the study of interconnected parts, or
sub-systems of a larger whole system. The economy is a whole system comprised of sub-
systems such as the banking system, the transportation system, the taxation system, etc. To
study the economy, one must study the interconnection of the various sub systems.
It furthers dialogue to think about the topic under discussion as a component of a larger
system. If a team is discussing a quality problem, a part they receive from a supplier that has
excessive variation from specifications, it may be useful to consider how that problem is
related to a larger system. For example, how was the supplier selected? Who selected them?
What specifications were given to the supplier, and did the design of the part lead to ease of
manufacturing? How often does the supplier receive feedback, how immediate is that feedback
and in what form is it given? Do we know to whom that feedback is communicated within the
supplier organization? Is it communicated to the workers who make the part? Can we talk to
them directly? Rather than simply focus on the problem of the part itself, the solution is more
likely to come from an examination of the whole system around that part.
Just as we tend to categorize and dismiss comments by individuals, we tend to fragment a
problem and deal with only isolated components of the problem. We do this because it is
easier. It is easier to say that the supplier “doesn’t care” about us and we should find a new
supplier. When we do this, we do not need to go to the trouble of understanding the feedback
system, the supplier selection and communication process, etc. Unfortunately, however, when
companies fail to analyze the system and simply dismiss a supplier and find a new one, the
problem often reoccurs because the system that was the cause of the problem has not changed.

Copyright, 2021 www.LMMiller.com Lawrence M. Miller

Dialogue: Learning to Think Together 12

6. Many Possibilities vs. One Right Way

When seeking to improve the marketing of a product, for example, we may discuss
changing demographics, new marketing channels created by new technology, the language
used in ads, the images used in ads, etc. etc. There are literally hundreds of possible variables
that may impact our marketing results and our opportunities.
It is a long left-over relic of the military age, in which the commander had to decide to
split his forces or keep them unified, to attach on the right or the left, etc. Although the
consequences of decisions might be monumental, the number of variables to consider was
relatively narrow. We live in a more complex world and simple solutions are very often
inadequate. The more we understand the systems of the marketplace or the systems of our
internal culture, we are likely to recognize that seeking improvement will require us to address
multiple causes and courses of action.
7. Seek Diverse Input vs. Uniform Input
A group of corporate decision makers who are all engineers, or all finance managers, or
who all come from the same industry or corporate culture, are similarly likely to become a
closed system. One of the advantages of the push for diverse Boards and diverse management
teams is simply because minorities or women, not conditioned to the same corporate culture
and assumptions, are more likely to ask the questions that force the group to think about the
meaning of what they are doing.
Members of a group may stay in the you-versus-me corner of the triangle because of their
perception of the possible contribution of others. It is normal to value the contributions of
those who have the same background, training or experience as yourself. If you are trained as
an engineer, and the primary work of the organization is engineering, it is normal for you to
value the ideas of other engineers. Senior management teams will typically have several
operating managers who rose from the area of core competence of the organization, such as
engineering. But there will also be a finance manager, a human resource manger, possibly an
attorney or others with supportive expertise. The nature of conversation is often prejudiced by
the value placed on these areas of expertise, independent of the actual merit of a contribution
by a team member.
Some years ago, I had the good fortune to be a member of local decision-making body of a
religious organization in Raleigh, North Carolina. The nine members of this spiritual assembly
could not have been more diverse. Two young women were doctoral students in clinical
psychology. Another was a professor of physics at the same university. Another had completed
his doctoral work at Harvard and was currently with the Environmental Protection Agency.
And then there were James and Marie Brodie. James and Marie were both in their sixties and
were African Americans, born and lived all their life in the South. James washed dishes at a
restaurant and Marie served as a maid. While other members of the group excelled in their
apparent intellect, James and Marie excelled in their constant display of the spiritual virtues of
humility, compassion, and service to others.

Copyright, 2021 www.LMMiller.com Lawrence M. Miller

Dialogue: Learning to Think Together 13

I was elected chairperson of this group. The responsibility of the chairperson was not one
of authority, but rather to facilitate the conversation so as to give each member the opportunity
to make their contribution. A video tape of the conversation among this group would be a good
case study in different styles of communication. The young candidates for their clinical
psychology degrees had no trouble expressing how they felt on any issue and were quick to do
so. The professor, while a bit more reflective, addressed the group with authority. The Harvard
graduate was as quick on the draw as anyone and always presented his views with both wit
and precision.
I remember on several occasions Marie Brodie would have her head down and her eyes
closed while the conversation was taking place. The well educated were quick to offer both
analysis and solutions to every problem. The group would appear to be ready to reach a
conclusion and move on to the next topic while Marie had yet to say a word. As the chairperson,
I would then ask Marie if she had any thoughts or feelings on the matter. I remember Marie
lifting up her head and opening her eyes, or even with her eyes still closed, saying in her soft
voice “I feel that we haven’t considered how this other person will react to this. Maybe we
should consider….” And, it turned out that Marie had been listening carefully, but considering
the issue from an entirely different point of view, a view that when heard by the rest of the
group, often completely turned the conversation in a different direction, to a solution that
would never have been discovered were it not for Marie’s soft voice.
When I have told this story, I have often felt compelled to say “God bless Marie Brodie”
and meant that in the most sincere way. Early on she gave me a gift, the opportunity to learn a
lesson about how individuals from very different backgrounds, and apparently very humble
circumstances, can contribute wisdom and insight that would otherwise be absent. But I also
learned that this wisdom can easily be by-passed or ignored, if one has an ear for only one type
of voice. The voice of the Ph.D. candidates is one voice. The voice of Marie Brodie is another one
entirely, almost an entirely different language. One must make the effort to tune in, to invite the
contribution, to respect the wisdom that may appear from a completely different voice.
Even in corporate decision-making groups, while individuals may appear to be from
similar backgrounds, they each have their own personality, some with stronger and some with
softer voices; some who are heard frequently and some who require an invitation. For genuine
dialogue to occur it is necessary that all voices be heard.
The assumption of dialogue is that the group is seeking the best understanding, the best
solution, for the combined interests of the group. This can only happen if the members of the
group can learn to look beyond their own filters that differentiate the contributions of one
individual over another.
8. Seek Your Authentic Voice vs. Reactive Voicing
To some degree, we all seek to speak in a voice that will produce approval from our
audience. It is normal, after all, to seek the approval of our peers or others. However, to
discover meaning through dialogue, we must seek the most honest, authentic and genuine self.
Do we even know our own voice? Do we know what are our own personal thoughts or feelings

Copyright, 2021 www.LMMiller.com Lawrence M. Miller

Dialogue: Learning to Think Together 14

are? Do we have the courage to voice those thoughts, simply because they are our honest
thoughts or feelings, our true voice? This is not an easy question.
I have known people who almost always seem to be speaking with a reactive voice, a
voice that is a reaction to their audience and a voice in which they expect to elicit a positive
reaction. However, it never quite works. The audience somehow senses an incomplete
authenticity, and incomplete honesty, and does not react as desired. The question becomes
does this person know her own voice? Does she have the internal courage to listen to her own
thoughts and feelings and then give voice to those thoughts and feelings? The inability to speak
with an honest, authentic voice, may be the result of fear, fear that one’s own voice is not
adequate, that one’s own ideas are not clever enough or profound enough. However, the
paradox is that what is most appreciated by others is not cleverness or profundity, but simple
honesty.
I have recently served on the Governing Board of a small private university in
Switzerland. The academic program was supervised by an academic council comprised of the
resident faculty. I attended the meetings of this council as the representative of the
administration. To increase participation and unity between students, faculty and
administration, a representative of the student council was added as a member of the group.
The truth was that the academicians had some fears about a student sitting in and listening to
their internal debates that often-concerned problems that would have impact on the students.
They also knew that their meetings were often much more like debates then dialogues.
A popular professor decided to leave the university and the academic council was
conducting a meeting to decide how to explain his departure to the students. The conversation
by the faculty expressed several rational reasons why he was leaving, and rational explanations
for why his departure would not prevent students from fulfilling their course requirements.
They seemed to have taken care of the matter when I invited the Student Council
representative to share her feelings. I knew that this professor was one of her favorites and
until this point she had remained silent. She was sitting somewhat slumped down in her chair
when I asked for her views. She sat up and then, with her head tilted to one side, struggling to
maintain her composure, said with considerable emotion “I don’t know…I just feel that the
faculty I came here to learn from is abandoning me! I don’t know how to explain this.” And with
this expression her hands were now covering her face as if to prevent others from seeing her
eyes, which she feared she could not control.
The group was silent for several seconds as they digested this new voice and the intense
emotion, they had not considered at all in their quest for rational explanations. The student had
the courage to speak in her own voice, in the voice of honest emotion, without which there
could be no honest dialogue. To genuinely understand how to communicate to the students it
had to be recognized that the student’s reaction was on an emotional level, and these emotions
demanded recognition by the faculty. Perhaps it would have been easy for the student to
remain silent since all of the conversation had been on the level of facts and schedules and
qualifications and she had little to contribute to that. But, from the perspective of the student,
the customer in this case, the matter was an entirely different one and voicing an entirely

Copyright, 2021 www.LMMiller.com Lawrence M. Miller

Dialogue: Learning to Think Together 15

different perspective required detached courage, a willingness to speak in her honest voice
without knowing how it would be received.
The ability to first listen to your own voice, to search for your own authentic thoughts
and feelings, and then to honestly express them, is often by-passed in our rush to get through
an agenda. William Isaacs, in his book on Dialogue 8 wrote “Finding and speaking one’s voice
requires first a willingness to be still. Daring to be quiet can seem like an enormous risk in a
world that values articulate speech. But to speak our voice we may have to learn to refrain from
speaking and listen. Not every word that comes to us needs to be spoken. In fact, learning to
choose consciously what we do and do not say can establish a great level of control and
stability in our lives.”
Developing the ability to engage in true dialogue is almost like developing maturity. It is
not a simple skill or technique. It is a different level of relationship and communication that
some people never achieve. It is the difference between the casual conversation you may have
with an acquaintance and the intimate sharing of the most private feelings with one who you
love and trust deeply.

8 Isaacs, William. Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. New York. Doubleday, 1999. p. 163.

Copyright, 2021 www.LMMiller.com Lawrence M. Miller