Dialogic Organization Development and Subject–Object Dualism: A Social Constructionist Perspective on Dialogic Methods in an Organizational Context

Abstract

This research explores the meanings that facilitators and sponsors working with Dialogic Organization Development (Dialogic OD) in the Brazilian context assign to their practices, using a social constructionist approach. Findings support the premise that Dialogic OD means more than just the application of methods and includes central metaphors used by participants to describe their practices. These metaphors suggest that “taken for granted” assumptions associated with a subject–object dualism may lead practitioners to reproduce nondialogical relations; however, when such assumptions are cast into doubt, Dialogic OD can stimulate the creation of new realities. The contrasts revealed by subject–object dualism suggest that the emergent field of Dialogic OD has been developing in tensional ways. Recommendations to practitioners include the acknowledgment of these tensions and “taken for granted” assumptions in a way that enables them to engage in more reflexive practices. Otherwise, Dialogic OD could become a new management fad.

Keywords

dialogic organization development dialogic practices social constructionism subject–object dualism

Introduction

For more than 50 years, Organization Development (OD) has been a subject studied by scholars and practitioners looking for structured ways to promote changes in organizational settings. The roots of OD lie in the studies of Lewin (1947) in the United States. In the following decades, the rise of the sociotechnical system, survey feedback, and action research triggered a widespread discussion on the role and dynamics of small groups as key players in working toward better performance in organizations.

Deviating somewhat from the concept of action research, scholars considered the idea of learning (Argyris, 1976) within OD, reflecting the importance of leadership on strategic changes (Argyris, 1985; Bennis, 1966) and the role of organizational culture in change management (Schein, 2004), to mention a few significant developers in the field. As explained by Bartunek and Moch (1987), studies on OD progressed from individuals and groups to a structural level of analysis. In the 1990s, Robertson, Roberts, and Porras (1993) proposed a planned model for organizational change, while the article of Van de Ven and Poole (1995) provided an integrative model that consolidated the pluralism of theories on development and change. A central point in such discussions is the concept of change and time. Weick and Quinn (1999), drawing on the idea of “change as a genre of organizational analysis,” considered change as a continuous process. Pettigrew, Woodman, and Cameron (2001) argued that “the field of organizational change is far from mature in understanding the dynamics and effects of time, process, discontinuity, and context” (p. 697), emphasizing the importance of multiple levels of analysis.

Meanwhile, new OD practices emerged during the 1980s and the following decades as a result of what OD consultants identified as accomplishing change in practice (Bushe & Marshak, 2009). These practices were based more on constructionist and postmodern assumptions in which change was understood as a continuous, emergent, self-organized, and socially constructed process. The traditional OD practices were based on the perspective that change could be created, planned, and managed against ideal models, following central premises of an existing single reality, a stronger subject–object distinction, and a problem-solving standpoint. The emerging “new OD practices” (Marshak & Grant, 2008), in contrast, were more dialogical or conversational in the sense that they provided spaces for new social agreements to be created, which could lead to change or not. Their central assumptions included the recognition of multiple realities, organizations as meaning-making systems, and a blurred subject–object distinction. It is in this academic and practical arena that Bushe and Marshak (2009, 2013, 2015) proposed the concept of “Dialogic Organization Development” (Dialogic OD), a conversational approach to change, in contrast to what they call “Classical” or “Diagnostic OD.” Combining social constructionist ideas and complexity sciences, the authors suggested a comprehensive theory on how these emerging practices differ from classical OD methods, as described in the next section.

But, even though Dialogic OD works on the assumption that realities are socially constructed, few empirical studies have explored the topic from a social constructionist perspective, which focuses on understanding the meanings sustaining human action. In this article, we explore the different meanings used by facilitators and sponsors (organization members responsible for choosing dialogic interventions) working with Dialogic OD to name, describe, and explain their practices. Based on empirical data, we argue that the subject–object dualism and its “taken for granted” individualistic premises may represent fundamental aspects, influencing the reproduction of nondialogical relations even in dialogical OD interventions.

The article is divided into four sections as follows. First, we review the Dialogic OD concept, followed by the main aspects of the social constructionist movement, exploring the subject–object dualism and the individualistic tradition that marked the idea of organizations and people as separate entities. Next, we identify the research opportunity and objectives and explain the data collection and analysis processes. We then move on to the findings of the research, showing: (a) images and metaphors used by the interviewees to describe OD practices, which can be placed into a continuum that goes from stronger to weaker subject–object dualism, and (b) dualist tensions revealed by interviewee accounts and how they relate to Dialogic OD Key Premises. To wrap up this article, we discuss the importance of acknowledging the inherent tensions behind the social construction of realities in such a way that Dialogic OD efforts are not turned into new nondialogical mechanisms.

Dialogic Organization Development

The concept of Dialogic OD was proposed by Bushe and Marshak (2009, 2013, 2015) as an attempt to provide an understanding of emerging OD practices that are based more on constructionist and postmodern assumptions than on what they call “Classical OD” (Marshak & Grant, 2008) or “Diagnostic OD” (Bushe & Marshak, 2009). These emerging practices, associated with methods such as Appreciative Inquiry, The World Café, Open Space Technology, Search Conference, and others, present philosophical assumptions that challenge the basic premises of OD, especially those regarding the nature of reality and models of change. But as we shall explain further below, Dialogic OD is not about following methods but revising the assumptions and mindsets of those working with them. According to Marshak and Grant (2008), the original formulations of OD included “strong positivist orientations.” From this perspective, change can be created, planned, and managed, once valid data are collected and applied with objective problem-solving methods. Organizations are considered “a collection of structures and processes adapting to or, in more complex formulations, coevolving with their environment” (Bushe & Marshak, 2009, p. 353). Methods consistent with these assumptions include action research, sociotechnical systems analysis, and survey feedback, among others.

Dialogic OD, in contrast, is based on the understanding of human systems as meaning-making systems. The underlying premise is that reality is socially constructed, sustained, and transformed by social interactions (narratives, stories, metaphors, and conversations) through which people give their experiences a meaning. In addition, as this collective process is idiosyncratic—very particular—to each group and context, the reproduction of ideal models of structures, processes, and change may not lead to preconceived outcomes. Change in this perspective is somewhat emergent rather than planned (Bushe & Marshak, 2009). The set of practices including Dialogic OD “has not always emerged from conscious attempts to apply theory to practice” (Bushe & Marshak, 2009, p. 351). Rather, they were a result of what OD consultants identified as working for accomplishing change in practice. So, by formulating the concept of Dialogic OD, the aim of Bushe and Marshak (2009, 2015) was to build a comprehensive theory on how these emerging practices differ from classical OD methodologies, so their particular assumptions and focus could be properly named, better understood, and therefore more coherently experienced by practitioners. The authors offer a list of methods that can be used dialogically, but their focus is to present a new orientation to dialogical OD practices not associated with any particular method. Descriptions of methods can be found in specific references—Open Space Technology (Owen, 2008), Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005), or The World Café (Brown & Isaacs, 2005)—and handbooks (Bunker & Alban, 2006; Holman, Devane, & Cady, 2007).

Dialogic OD Mindset and Core Processes

Bushe and Marshak (2015) suggest that Dialogic OD is not about following methods but about changing the mindsets of those working with them. This means that any method can be used under diagnostic or dialogic premises, since it is the mindset of the individual that influences how they perceive and engage with the world. The dialogic mindset as proposed includes eight key premises: (a) reality and relationships are socially constructed, (b) organizations are meaning-making systems, (c) language matters, (d) creating change requires changing conversations, (e) participative inquiry and engagement to increase differentiation should precede the search for coherence, (f) groups and organizations are continuously self-organizing, (g) transformational change is more emergent than planned, and (h) consultants are a part of the process. Moreover, the authors argue that three core processes, singly or in combination, are essential to the success of Dialogic OD, namely: (a) a disruption in the ongoing social construction of reality is stimulated in a way that leads to more complex reorganization, (b) a change to one or more core narratives takes place, and (c) a generative image is introduced to provide new and compelling alternatives for thinking and acting. The Dialogic OD concept is presented as a generative image inspiring transformation.

Theoretical Bases of Dialogic OD

Two major movements have been highlighted as the theoretical bases sustaining Dialogic OD: the social constructionism movement and the complexity, self-organization, and emergence theories, which work together to produce practical results.

According to Barrett (2015), social constructionism—an umbrella term that includes several perspectives that originated as from the 1960s—challenges the “representational theory of knowledge,” the roots of which can be traced back to the Enlightenment tradition and whose premises are strongly present in the early theories and practices of Organization Development and Change. The assumption of existing objective facts separated from the subjects has been contested by the idea that what we take to be “true” or “rational” does not come from interior thought functions but is actually historically and contextually situated in our social relationships: “traditions of truth” (Gergen, 1999) or “forms of cultural life” (Hosking & McNamee, 2006). This means that words acquire their meaning through relationships, from their use in speaking and action, so meaning has a fluid and contextualized nature (Gergen, 1999). If language constitutes our social world, then conversations and dialogue can be a source of transformation. However, this is a two-way process. On the one hand, so powerful are our ways of talking that these may turn into “taken for granted” assumptions: an ignored or unnoticed “conversational background” (Shotter, 2008) or “traditions of truth” (Gergen, 1999, 2009), which exert a force for stability. On the other hand, as we live in multiple contexts, different traditions come into contact. So, depending on the degree to which people involved are committed to (or imprisoned by) their traditions, this contact can escalate to conflict (Gergen, 1999; Gergen, McNamee, & Barrett, 2001) and/or open up possibilities for new meanings to be co-created, exerting a force for transformation.

The social constructionist movement presents different orientations, contrasting mainly with regard to the extent to which reality is perceived as objectified, and the degree to which people are perceived as separate (Cunliffe, 2008). Some scholars assume that there is an objectified social reality, which is a discursive product that, in turn, influences its members (Marshak, Grant, & Floris, 2015). Novelty could be encouraged by new language in use, with generative images and metaphors that help bring about new meanings (Bushe & Storch, 2015). Other scholars assume that “our sense of our social world emerges continually” (Cunliffe, 2008, p. 128). Here, there is no separation between subjective and objective reality: We are “always in relation to others whether they are present or not.” Research is focused not on what an objectified reality is but rather on how people shape meaning between themselves in spontaneously body-responsive ways (Shotter & Cunliffe, 2002).

Along with social constructionism, complexity theory converged with Dialogic OD in the same direction: challenging dominant assumptions of a fragmented, linear, and predictable world. In the last 40 years, new discoveries in the fields of biology, chemistry, and physics have triggered a scientific movement toward holism and the understanding of systems, not from their self-contained parts, but from the relationships that exist among seemingly disconnected parts (Wheatley, 1992). Challenging the basic premise of classical Newtonian science, by which the universe—like a clock—could be taken apart and then reassembled, new scientific ideas were based on the principle that almost nothing is isolated (Holman, 2015). Influenced by the work of several scientific scholars, Holman (2015, pp. 146-147) presents a set of new concepts, including (a) chaos: “complex behaviour arises through the interactions of individual agents following simple rules. Furthermore, initial conditions can have a significant impact”; (b) complexity: “a state that is just stable enough—far from equilibrium—a dynamic tension between order and chaos”; (c) self-organization: “spontaneously arises when different agents of a complex system interact with each other and with their environment”; and (d) emergence: “a lens to the nature of those interactions, focusing on novelty—new properties, different from their component parts, arising.” Such concepts relate to Dialogic OD as it invites practitioners to acknowledge and adapt to the unexpected and unique characteristics of a given system (Stacey, 2015).

The Social Constructionist Movement and Subject–Object Dualism

As previously mentioned, to understand reality as a socially constructed process means to acknowledge that meanings are not fixed but contextualized, fluid, and created collectively through the use of language. Furthermore, it means we need to understand and reflect on the consequences of the current traditions of truth, which are often take for granted and yet influence our mindsets, practices, and behavior patterns. According to several constructionist authors (Camargo-Borges & Rasera, 2013; Gergen, 1999, 2009; Hosking & McNamee, 2006; Shotter, 2008), one of the strongest traditions of truth, as socially created and strongly rooted in our Western culture, refers to the view by which people are seen as self-contained individuals with internal/mental capacities that would precede their actions. Within such an “individualist tradition,” the individual self and the outside world (other individuals, society, environment) are perceived as separate, meaning that relationships are understood as by-products that arise when independent individuals come together. Relationships are put in to serve the needs and desires of the individual—competition, exploitation of nature, and the weakness of social institutions represent potential consequences of such perspectives. Moreover, the individualistic tradition tends to place the source of all problems and solutions within individuals, “operating like a blinder”: “individuals cause problems and individuals must be repaired—through therapy, education, imprisonment, and so on” (Gergen, 1999, p. 82).

The central shift proposed by these ideas is to understand ourselves as “relational beings” rather than “bounded beings” (Gergen, 2009), questioning the boundaries that seem to separate us from others and from the world around us, which brings the negative implications mentioned before. This perspective offers a new standpoint on the relationship between individuals and organizations, and can be an important source of reflection within the Dialogic OD theoretical and practical discussion. As Hosking (2006) describes, most Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Management texts treat people and organizations as “separate entities, in subject-object [S-O] relationships, where the former aims to know and to form the latter in relation to seemingly rational purposes, and relational processes are reduced to input-outcome dynamics” (p. 62). This implies understanding that there is (a) an acting subject—the leaders, the change agents, and so on—who are the ones who act to know and influence the other(s); and (b) an acted upon object—the organization, the employees, and so on (Hosking, 2006). The notion that organizations have networks of conversations is replaced by the idea that organizations are “fields of conversation” (Gergen, 1999) in which different realities are constantly co-created, maintained, and/or transformed. To think in terms of “relational beings” means to understand that our relationships shape the way we perceive and make sense of the world (influencing our mindsets), which in turn influences our ways of relating—all of this in interconnected and ever-emerging ways.

Research Opportunity

Although Dialogic OD works on the assumption that realities are socially constructed, few empirical studies approach the topic from a social constructionist research perspective. The objective of this study is to reflect on the construction of meanings in dialogic interventions; in other words, how practitioners are naming, describing, and explaining their practices. Furthermore, considering that the concept of Dialogic OD is recent and that the reason Bushe and Marshak developed it was to (re)name and (re)conceptualize a set of traditional OD practices, this study offers two central contributions: (a) to provide greater clarity about social constructionist ideas on subject–object dualism and the contrasts between an individualistic and a relational perspective in OD interventions; and (b) to provide insights, based on the narratives, images, and metaphors provided by the interviews, on whether and how such individualistic traditions, often taken for granted, can be identified in the accounts of those practicing them. Thus, the research question was the following:

Research Question 1: What meanings do external facilitators and sponsors engaged in dialogic methods place on themselves and on their work?

The specific goals of the study were (a) to identify the interpretative repertoires used by these professionals to name, describe, and explain dialogic methods within an organizational context; (b) to identify whether and how such an interpretative repertoire reveals subject–object dualism and relates to the concepts of Dialogic OD; and (c) to explore how the perceptions of practitioners on dialogic methods can enhance our understanding of social constructionist ideas.

The study did not investigate the Dialogic OD processes themselves, as our methodology accessed what participants said about their practices, which is not the same as experiencing them from within, and for an extended period of time—long enough to observe transformational changes. So, our contribution is more related to Dialogic OD key premises—through the understanding of its own process of construction—than to the evaluation of the effectiveness of its core processes.

Research Process

This study focuses on facilitators and sponsors working with Dialogic OD methods in the Brazilian context. Brazil is one of the largest economies in the world (ranked ninth in 2016, according to the World Bank¹), and has a population of more than 200 million. São Paulo, the city where the research was conducted, is the country’s financial center and is home to the largest firms in the country in different sectors. Although the Dialogical OD practices are spread among many companies, there are no studies conducted in the Brazilian context by academic scholars. We conducted semistructured interviews with 11 facilitators who were familiar with and/or trained in at least one dialogical method (based on the list provided by Bushe & Marshak, 2015) and who had facilitated at least three dialogical processes in the last year (regardless of the methods used) and 14 sponsors who had experienced at least one dialogical process in the last year (regardless of the method used). Specific dialogic methods used by facilitators included Appreciative Inquiry, Open Space Technology, Theory U, The World Café, and Art of Hosting. Most sponsors did not know how to name the methods, so this information was not declared in their case. As sponsors were indicated by facilitators (snowball strategy), we assumed that they experienced the same methods listed by facilitators. See Table 1 for the characteristics of respondents. Names were kept confidential at all times: facilitators are referenced as “F” and sponsors as “S.”

Table 1.

Details of Interview Respondents.

Code	Sex	Age bracket	Organization sector and size (annual gross revenue^a)	Methods used (based on list of examples in Bushe and Marshak, 2015)
F1	Male	30-45	Consultant/Small firm	Future Search, The World Café
F2	Female	30-45	Consultant/Small firm	Art of Hosting, Open Space Technology, The World Café
F3	Male	30-45	Consultant/Small firm	Theory U, The World Café
F4	Female	30-45	Consultant/Small firm	Art of Hosting, Appreciative Inquiry, Open Space Technology, Talking Stick, Theory U, The World Café
F5	Female	30-45	Consultant/Small firm	Art of Hosting, Appreciative Inquiry, Open Space Technology, Talking Stick, Theory U, The World Café
F6	Male	30-45	Consultant/Small firm	Art of Hosting, Appreciative Inquiry, Open Space Technology, Talking Stick, Theory U, The World Café
F7	Female	30-45	Consultant/Small firm	Open Space Technology, Talking Stick, The World Café
F8	Female	30-45	Consultant/Small firm	Art of Hosting, Appreciative Inquiry, Open Space Technology, Talking Stick, Theory U, The World Café
F9	Female	45-60	Consultant/Small firm	Art of Hosting, Appreciative Inquiry, Open Space Technology, Talking Stick, Theory U, The World Café
F10	Female	45-60	Consultant/Small firm	Talking Stick, The World Café
F11	Male	45-60	Consultant/Small firm	Appreciative Inquiry
S1	Female	30-45	Education/Small firm	Not declared^b
S2	Female	30-45	Education/Small firm	Not declared
S3	Female	30-45	Telecomm/Large firm	Not declared
S4	Female	30-45	Telecomm/Large firm	Not declared
S5	Male	30-45	Telecomm/Large firm	Not declared
S6	Female	30-45	Healthcare/Large firm	Not declared
S7	Female	30-45	Industrial/Large firm	Not declared
S8	Female	30-45	Cosmetics/Large firm	Not declared
S9	Male	30-45	Pharmaceutical/Large firm	Not declared
S10	Female	45-60	Pharmaceutical/Large firm	Not declared
S11	Female	30-45	Pharmaceutical/Large firm	Not declared
S12	Female	45-60	Insurance/Large firm	Not declared
S13	Male	30-45	Insurance/Large firm	Not declared
S14	Male	45-60	Industrial Supplies/Large firm	Not declared

Note. Table created by the authors.

Small firm: less than US$10 million; Medium: from US$10 to US$99 million; Large: more than US$100 million. ^bMost sponsors did not know how to name the methods.

Data Collection

On gathering data on the practices of respondents with dialogic methods, first we asked questions about their motivations and expectations. Next, we invited them to give examples/stories about recent experiences in order to observe how they name, describe, and explain their practices. As the stories emerged, we asked about perceived positive impacts, tensions, and challenges. We followed these guiding questions but at the same time remained open to new themes as they emerged. The first access to facilitators was through personal access to an international network of practitioners (The Art of Hosting and Harvesting Conversations that Matter: artofhosting.org). Access to other participants was through recommendations (snowball strategy). Interviews took place in São Paulo, Brazil. All interviews were recorded and transcribed into a Word document, totaling 22 hours of conversation and 423 pages of transcription.

Data Analysis

Following the recommendations made by Spink and Lima (2013) on the production of meaning in interviews, analysis began with a thorough reading of the information collected, grouping this information into emerging themes. No formal coding system was used, but a map of idea associations (Spink & Lima, 2013) was constructed for each interview. According to the Spink and Lima (2013), the map has a double objective: “To provide elements to the interpretation process and to facilitate the communication of the steps taken during interpretation” (p. 84). The construction process of the map is given in accordance with the way interviews are carried out: “There is no fixed number of columns, or predetermined sequence of categories. It is a process of construction that is closely related to the purpose of the investigation and the repertoires available” (p. 91). Lines represent participants and columns specific topics or themes investigated—both the topics that were initially considered and emergent ones. Not only what is said is considered (words, utterances, and related themes) but also how it is said (word sequences and connections between ideas). Different from a formal coding process, which usually reduces or eliminates such elements, the map of idea associations allows us to comprehend a text as a whole. Furthermore, it allows us to analyze regularities and irregularities—ideas that are not necessarily repeated frequently but represent significant meanings in the investigation context. The map constructed for this analysis began by organizing ideas on how participants name dialogic practices; we then identified central elements on how they describe and explain them; followed by ideas associated with motivations, impacts, and challenges. Images and metaphors emerged spontaneously during the interviews as participants would say “a dialogic intervention is like . . .” And because the use of metaphors was frequent, we introduced this column in our map and could identify how such images were associated with meanings that seemed to sustain the choice for dialogic methods and underlying “taken for granted” assumptions related to subject–object dualism. As explored by Gergen (1999), metaphors represent ways through which people create new meanings and interpretative repertoires (through new possibilities of interpretation and the action they provide), and at the same time deeply rooted “taken for granted” ideas. Even though participants did not mention the same metaphors, we identified similar and different meanings around the images that emerged. Finally, by associating such meanings with the literature on subject–object dualism, we arrived at the results, which were summarized in three sets of images raging from stronger to weaker subject–object relations. This process allowed us to identify the central images and metaphors used to name, describe, and explain dialogic methods, including the expectations of respondents, perceived impacts and challenges; explore “taken for granted” assumptions related to subject–object dualism; and relate the contrasts revealed by this dualism with Bushe and Marshak’s Dialogic OD Key Premises. Figure 1 presents an example of the map constructed. The results presented below result from this interpretation process, carried out for all 25 interviews.

Figure 1.

Idea association map: Example of the process used in the analysis.

Images of Dialogic OD Practices and Subject–Object Dualism

The research revealed three sets of images to describe Dialogic OD practices, which were identified by grouping the metaphors participants used to name, describe, and explain dialogic methods. These images could be displayed in a continuum that ranges from stronger to weaker subject–object relations, as summarized in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Dialogic organization development and subject–object dualism.

Dialogic OD as a Gym: Stronger Subject–Object Dualism

On the left side of the continuum, a stronger subject–object relation can be found, where accounts reveal individualistic premises in the way participants refer to conditions of “the individuals,” “the people,” “the organization,” or “the leadership” as entities that exist separately. Here, the metaphor of a gym is used, in the sense that dialogic experiences offer a space/opportunity for people to learn or to practice certain ideal abilities related to dialogue and change:

It’s like going to the gym for the first time ( . . . ) how do you get better? By doing it, right? The muscles are: openness, inclusion, collaboration, coherence and belief. (F6)

An image of a place to practice certain characteristics against ideal models can be related to the “diagnostic mindset,” in which there are models to be followed once a proper diagnosis is made about “the group” or “the organization.” In an attempt to justify why dialogic methods “work” or “fail to work,” participants sometimes drew attention to whose “fault” it was, referring to several expectations about one another.

People just don’t know how to work together, so it’s not just the basics regarding politics, or the hidden agendas, it’s not knowing how to speak, not knowing how to listen, not knowing how to produce, not knowing how to be objective, not knowing how to show respect, not knowing how to manage time. It’s basically not knowing how to talk. (F7)

Here, the metaphors of translators and educators—as the ones who bring this new, more dialogical language or abilities to organizations—were used to explain how some facilitators and sponsors see themselves and their roles.

I think that the sponsor’s role is to be a translator inside the company ( . . . ) If he can’t, after a co-creation or collaboration process, translate its outcomes to the other people (engineers for instance), they won’t buy into the results. (S5)

In this case, participants seem to regard dialogic methods and themselves (the Subject) as a way of overcoming the resistance and/or educating others (the Objects). It is as if facilitators were responsible for results, either of “educating people” on how to have better conversations or to translate to “other people” inside the company what is supposedly being co-created by the group involved in the dialogic processes. Direct impacts and centralized decision making are expected, so perceived challenges include implementation and continuity of results. Tensions are understood as a problem to be solved and are hence expressed in either/or terms.

At the end of the day, the one to make the decisions is the one to make the decisions. Then I understand that the process is enriching, but in the end you’re leading the project and if it lacks identity, it gets lost, because everyone who was there came from a different place and has a different perspective. (S3)

Dialogic OD as a Door and a Container: Blurred Subject–Object Dualism

In the center of the continuum, a blurred subject–object relation can be found with accounts that reveal the image of a door, in which dialogic methods represent openness to many diverse possibilities. Dialogic OD here is understood as something that gives people access to other people, other ideas, and other points of view. In the same direction, the metaphor of a breath of fresh air was mentioned as a reference to the way people usually commit (and become imprisoned) to their “own truths,” needing to “breathe” again or to acknowledge other realities and other values.

I think it’s a door. I think it’s the space where we can have access to many other perspectives that they don’t see, like, in one-to-one conversation. (S3)

Here, several accounts refer to dialogic methods as an opportunity for discovering or creating something that one person could not do alone. Perceived positive impacts seem to be related to learning and attending to the interests of other people/stakeholders and other realities, finding new possibilities/solutions to a given situation/problem, and creating/delivering something new (a new product or service, a strategy), which is appropriated by everyone involved rather than imposed from the top down. Here, participants talk about feeling relieved, happy, ecstatic, different (changed), proud, and empowered after experiences with dialogic methods.

Wow, how did I manage to talk so much and come up with things I hadn’t even thought of before? You say something crazy here and you don’t think it’s cool, but when you actually let it out, people start giving you some input and the whole idea is improved, and you ascend to a higher place. (S4)

Some of these positive impacts are also described in abstract terms as something hard to explain or put into words—like a dream or magic (other metaphors used here):

There’s something magic I can’t explain, and I don’t think I’ll find out ( . . . ) you start by proposing a dialogue and you immediately realize that the mood has been set, something magic. (F10)

Following these narratives, participants were asked “what makes such encounters different from other meetings or other conversations already taking place within organizations?” This question raised accounts about intentionally/specially designed encounters with clear purposes, enabling conditions and spaces, using the image of a container. These enabling conditions include aspects related to the process (clear purposes, intriguing questions, diverse participants, a welcoming physical space, and methodologies that meet the needs of the group), to the people involved (self-awareness, openness), to the organization (culture and leadership), and to the facilitator (sensitivity to the energy of the group).

If you don’t have any reason to talk, don’t even start it. (F8)

There’s a whole management of group energy, which demands great sensitivity as well. If you change the energy, you change the dynamics. Pose a question, bring the coffee break forward, open the window, whatever you feel the group needs. (F1)

Within this perspective, tensions are not understood as a problem, being expressed in both/and terms. This is revealed by the contrast between an image that represents openness (a door) with one that represents the need for a clear understanding of purposes and limitations of interventions within a given situation/context (a container). In this sense, coherence and credibility become central challenges, including coherence in leadership positioning, alignment of purpose and expectations, neutrality, and knowledge of concepts and methods for dialogic interventions.

Dialogic OD as a Flow: Weaker or Nonexistent Subject–Object Dualism

Finally, on the right side of the continuum, a weaker subject–object relation can be located. Here, accounts reveal the idea of dialogic methods as a flow or a way of being, where dialogue is not viewed as a “thing” to be taught under certain conditions. Instead, it is something to be experienced/lived with others in every single situation, not something to be explained or theorized. Here, the metaphor of a seed was used to explain that the impacts of dialogic methods are uncertain and usually take time. The image of an iceberg was used to describe such invisible effects, meaning that one is never able to see “all the impacts” a dialogic intervention may have on people.

You do not train people, you’re not training them, you’re with them. That makes all the difference, you are not a dialogue coach, you sit down and have a conversation, you make the dialogue ( . . . ) people will be touched the way they are touched, or not, I do not know. (F9)

Perceived challenges here are related to trusting that new dialogic models may bring positive results or impacts even when they do not know what they will be; and being prepared to deal with whatever may emerge from conversations. Such a perspective relates to Dialogic OD, especially considering the aspects of complexity theories such as emergence and the importance of local and ongoing interactions.

There are two things: the company timing for change—you may create dialogical, appreciative, and relational spaces, but people come and go, so institutional change may take years. And individual timing: individually, people may have an immediate response, or take a good five years to reveal change. (F9)

Dialogic OD as a flow permeates the practices of sponsors and facilitators, and in such cases, the dualism subject–object seems to disappear. However, it is important to consider that such dualism is by no means a simple process and this quote also shows that changing mindsets takes time, especially considering collective structures. Such contrast and others can be related to Dialogic OD Key Premises, as presented next.

Dialogic OD Key Premises and the Dualistic Tensions Behind Them

As realities are multiple and language is constitutive of these realities, dialogue is turned into a promising means of transformation. The problem is that such a perspective, without questioning “taken for granted” assumptions, may be turned into just another theory or organizational “how to” model, contradicting exactly what social constructionism and the Dialogic OD concept are trying to tell us. In this article, results were analyzed focusing on the persistence of the individualistic “traditions of truth” (subject–object dualism). Taking into consideration such “taken for granted” assumptions, the study reveals images and metaphors that range from stronger to weaker subject–object relations. This contrast suggests that the dualism is still part of the assumptions of Dialogic OD practitioners coexisting with repertoires that represent a weaker or nonexistent dualism. This is consistent with the ideas of Bushe and Marshak (2015), that any method can be used under diagnostic or dialogic premises, as it is the mindset of the individual that influences how they perceive and engage with the world. But according to social constructionist ideas, mindsets are not given, but result from all our social interactions. This means that findings are also consistent with the social constructionism perspective that language operates as a two-way process. Our ways of talking are so powerful that they may turn into ignored or unnoticed “conversational background” (Shotter, 2008) or “traditions of truth” (Gergen, 1999, 2009), which exert a force for stability. On the other hand, because we live in multiple contexts, different traditions come into contact, opening up possibilities for new meanings to be co-created, which then exert force for transformation. In this sense, the results of the study can be related to the Dialogic OD mindset’s key premises, revealing that the emergent field of Dialogic OD has been developing in tensional ways, as meanings used by participants to describe their practices exert forces for stability and transformation at the same time. Figure 3 presents quotes that reveal such tensions.

Figure 3.

Dialogic OD key premises and the dualistic tensions behind them.

It is important to mention that acknowledging the subject–object dualism and its related tensions does not mean abandoning the traditional views of bounded individuals—which are strongly ingrained in our Western society—and therefore to expect new ideal models of relationship. It means, as argued by Gergen (2009), to acknowledge that once we grasp the concept of relational being, “new forms of actions are invited” (p. 5). Once we acknowledge that social systems are a result of our interactions, we may reduce our individualistic blind spots and reach greater coherence between our intentions and actions. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the core processes of Bushe and Marshak (2015) could neither be observed nor evaluated, since our methodology accessed what participants said, which is not the same as experiencing them from within and for an extended period of time (long enough to observe transformational changes).

Discussion

In this article, we have focused on practitioners of Dialogic OD (facilitators and sponsors) for whom dialogical methods have been used as a way of achieving organizational change. By focusing on this group, we have explored the different meanings used by individuals to name, describe, and explain their practices. As Dialogic OD is a recently developed concept (Bushe & Marshak, 2009, 2015), it is expected that practitioners will still lack formal or theoretical repertories to define dialogic methods as proposed by Dialogic OD concepts, premises, and processes. Even so, as the study is based on social constructionist ideas, we argue that it is important to accept that the construction of any social reality is marked by constant tensions between forces for stability (traditions of truth and “taken for granted” assumptions) and forces for transformations (new shared meanings). Based on that, our study contributes at three levels. First, we have provided greater clarity about social constructionist ideas on the subject–object dualism. Second, we have provided insights on whether and how such individualistic traditions, often taken for granted, can be identified in the accounts of practitioners. And third, we have explored how such dualism can be related in tensional ways to the Dialogic OD key premises as proposed by Bushe and Marshak (2015).

The research results indicate that, within the context analyzed, the emerging set of Dialogic OD practices, even though they are based on dialogical premises, are still understood by some practitioners under diagnostic premises. It is therefore important to recognize that, at this moment, the concept of bounded individuals, constructed and rooted over centuries still has a strong influence. So both ideas (Diagnostic and Dialogic OD) may shape the activities of practitioners for a long time in tensional ways. As subject–object dualism persists in the practice of Dialogical OD, to be aware of such dualism can turn practices into a more realistic, reflexive, and coherent approach.

Implications for Practice

The practice of Dialogic OD frequently involves a facilitator, sponsors (organization members responsible for the dialogic intervention), and participants (all the other people involved in the process). Even though this research focused on facilitators and sponsors, the discussions presented above may bring implications to all involved. Bushe and Marshak (2015) argue that it is important for Dialogic OD practitioners to develop a mindset and a process with certain premises. This mindset would be essential to increase the potential of dialogic interventions, which are described by the authors as much more than the application of methods. This study suggests that Dialogic OD practitioners understand that their practices mean more than just the application of tools as they present meanings and interpretative repertoires consistent with Dialogic OD key premises. Still, accounts reveal assumptions that are more related to a diagnostic mindset, even though practitioners have dialogical intentions. We propose that one way of understanding these contrasts is to locate the “taken for granted” assumptions related to object–subject dualism.

First, to understand reality and relationships as socially constructed means to acknowledge that social realities do not result from a bounded or isolated individual but from relationships. In this regard, if meanings are not fixed, but contextualized, fluid, and created through language in use, before new mindsets or forms of relationships can be developed, social constructionism invites us to understand our current, and “taken for granted,” ways of living together. Regarding Dialogic OD, the findings of this research suggest that practitioners reveal a variety of meanings that can, to different extents, be related to “taken for granted” individualistic traditions. If possible, practitioners should be more attentive to their own assumptions reproducing individualist premises. And second, as some participants indicate, concerns related to problem-solving difficulties, “in the individual” or “in the organization” as separate entities, a mechanical, superficial, or decontextualized practice may unfold. By fragmenting reality, practitioners may run the risk of not fully engaging in the relationships in front of them, missing the subtle, fluid, complex, and usually unnoticed aspects that are part of the social construction of realities. In following these recommendations, practitioners may recognize that Dialogic OD premises involve not only individual (bounded) efforts and processes as previously schematized. It involves, at the same time, recognizing themselves as relational beings, perceiving that relationships are to be experienced and noticed with others, as they occur, in highly contextualized, fluid, and tensional ways. This may lead to more reflexive and realistic (not idealized) practices, helping practitioners to engage more deeply in the opportunity that Dialogic OD provides. Dialogic OD could become a new management fad as the subject–object dualism persists blindly in practitioner’s mindsets.

Limitations and Opportunities for Further Studies

First, this study presents the fact that the sample did not include participants of Dialogic interventions as a limitation, only facilitators and sponsors. Also, as we focused on subject–object dualism, we did not explore the differences or similarities between sponsors and facilitators in our analysis, discussing only how the dualism was revealed on both talks. Furthermore, the sample was highly contextualized, representing practitioners of Dialogic methods from São Paulo, Brazil. But the potential of this contextualized study is to broaden the possibilities of understanding on the topic and inspire new empirical studies. Also, by using only interviews as data collection, research was not conducted “from within” dialogic methods, which would be highly consistent with the social constructionist approach. An interesting opportunity would be to explore Dialogic OD using ethnography, for instance. Regarding the theoretical basis, some opportunities for further studies include practice theory to discuss dialogue “as practice”; process theory to discuss dialogic methods as a “step” into organizational transformation; and critical perspectives as the accounts of those participating point to the challenge of dialogic methods turning into another management fad.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Argyris

(1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 363-375.

Argyris

(1985). Strategy, change, and defensive routines. Boston, MA: Pitman.

Barrett

F. J.

(2015) Social Constructionist Challenge to Representational Knowledge: Implications for Understanding Organization Change. In: Bushe

G. R.

Marshak

R. J.

(Eds). Dialogic Organization Development. The Theory and Practice of Transformational Change (chap. 3). Oakland, CA: Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Bartunek

Moch

M. K.

(1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organization development interventions: A cognitive approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23, 483-500.

Bennis

(1966). Changing organizations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2, 247-263.

Brown

Isaacs

(2005). World café: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Bunker

B. B.

Alban

B. T.

(2006). The handbook of large group methods. Creating systemic change in organizations and communities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bushe

G. R.

Marshak

R. J.

(2009). Revisioning organization development: Diagnostic and dialogic premises and patterns of practice. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45, 348-368.

Bushe

G. R.

Marshak

R. J.

(2013). An introduction to advances in dialogic organization development. Journal of the Organization Development Network, 45(1), 1-4.

10.

Bushe

G. R.

Marshak

R. J.

(2015). Dialogic organization development: The theory and practice of transformational change. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

11.

Bushe

G. R.

Storch

(2015). Generative image: Sourcing novelty. In Bushe

G. R.

Marshak

R. J.

(Eds.), Dialogic organization development. The Theory and practice of transformational change (pp. 101-122). Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

12.

Camargo-Borges

Rasera

E. F.

(2013, April-June). Social constructionism in the context of organization development: Dialogue, imagination, and co-creation as resources of change. SAGE Open, 3(2). doi:10.1177/2158244013487540

13.

Cooperrider

Whitney

(2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

14.

Cunliffe

A. L.

(2008). Orientations to social constructionism: Relationally responsive social constructionism and its implications for knowledge and learning. Management Learning, 39, 123-139.

15.

Gergen

K. J.

(1999). An invitation to social constructionism. London, England: Sage.

16.

Gergen

K. J.

(2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

17.

Gergen

K. J.

McNamee

Barrett

F. J.

(2001). Toward transformative dialogue. International Journal of Public Administration, 24, 679-707.

18.

Holman

(2015). Complexity, self-organization and emergence. In Bushe

G. R.

Marshak

R. J.

(Eds.), Dialogic organization development. The theory and practice of transformational change (pp. 123-150). Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

19.

Holman

Devane

Cady

(2007). The change handbook: The definitive resource on today’s best methods for engaging whole systems. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

20.

Hosking

D. M.

(2006). Organizations, organizing, and related concepts of change. In Hosking

D. M.

McNamee

(Eds.), The social construction of organization (pp. 54-68). Copenhagen, Denmark: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.

21.

Hosking

D. M.

McNamee

(2006). Making your way: Please start here. In Hosking

D. M.

McNamee

(Eds.), The social construction of organization (pp. 23-33). Copenhagen, Denmark: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.

22.

Lewin

(1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science, social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(June), 5-41.

23.

Marshak

R. J.

Grant

(2008). Organizational discourse and new organization development practices. British Journal of Management, 19, S7-S19.

24.

Marshak

R. J.

Grant

D. S.

Floris

(2015). Discourse and dialogic organization development. In Bushe

G. R.

Marshak

R. J.

(Eds.), Dialogic organization development: The theory and practice of transformational change (pp. 77-100). Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

25.

Owen

(2008). Open space technology: A user’s guide. San Francisco, CA: Berrett- Koehler.

26.

Pettigrew

A. M.

Woodman

R. W.

Cameron

K. S.

(2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 697-713.

27.

Robertson

P. J.

Roberts

D. R.

Porras

J. I.

(1993). Dynamics of planned organizational change: Assessing empirical support for a theoretical model. Academy of Management, 36, 619-634.

28.

Schein

(2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

29.

Shotter

(2008). Conversational realities revisited: Life, language, body and world. Taos, NM: Taos Institute.

30.

Shotter

Cunliffe

A. L.

(2002). Managers as practical authors: Everyday conversations for action. In Holman

Thorpe

(Eds.), Management and language: The manager as practical author (pp.15-37). London, England: Sage.

31.

Spink

M. J.

Lima

(2013). Rigor e Visibilidade [Rigor and visibility]. In Spink

M. J.

(Ed.), Práticas Discursivas e Produção de Sentidos no Cotidiano [Discursive practices and production of senses in daily life] (pp. 71-99). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Centro Edelstein de Pesquisas Sociais.

32.

Stacey

(2015). Understanding organizations as complex responsive processes of relating. In Bushe

G. R.

Marshak

R. J.

(Eds.), Dialogic organization development: The theory and practice of transformational change (pp. 151-176). Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

33.

Van de Ven

A. H.

Poole

M. S.

(1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 510-540.

34.

Weick

K. E.

Quinn

R. E.

(1999). Organizational change and development. Annual review of psychology, 50, 361-386.

35.

Wheatley

M. J.

(1992). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.