Glad you liked it and thanks for taking the time to respond. It sounds like we hold similar views! A couple of things occur to me, in response to your comments.

In terms of what needs to be in place for this type of conversation to emerge, I find it helpful to think about ‘conditions’, which may or may not be things that are explicit or contracted for they could be emergent, as opposed to ‘ground rules’, which normally come with a contracting phase and can be clunky/parental. And some groups need that hierarchical intervention, yet I notice I shy away from that when possible.

The other reflection I had was around the iceberg model (which i like, although have not used myself) and intuition. I am all for intuition, if, like alcohol, used responsibly! Or more seriously, if held lightly. I tend to the view that the real skill is in sensing into intuition, and holding it in such a way that you can use the ‘rational’ (critical thinking) part of the brain to inquire into (the whole of) what is being experienced. It is not an either or, more for me a question of reflecting how we actually make meaning and unpacking that the best we can. I like Daniel Kahneman’s work in this area for example.

Best wishes,

Steve

For anyone interested in this Bill (William) Isaacs book “Dialogue” is a non-academic book which gives a good description of these topics.

By non-academic I mean he doesn’t assume any prior knowledge of relevant theory.

How did we get there? We had to move past polite talk, just as you wrote about, and really listen and grant each other a place in the conversation to be who we were, but without it being forced in any way. It was entirely organic.

I’ve tried to emulate this effect in my work in organisations, with teams and the like, but it can’t be manufactured, I’ve found (perhaps others have had better results); the only thing we can do is put some ground rules in place and facilitate dialogue.

Thinking about that, and your comments about ‘the unsaid’, one of the models/metaphors/exercises I use frequently is of an iceberg model of listening, and listening at different levels of your head, your heart and your intuition. Without exception when you listen with your intuition to the unsaid (beneath the surface) and reflect this back – within a safe space and without ‘exposure’ to the other person, of course – the conversation shifts a radical gear and suddenly you’re into a whole other realm of meaning making and understanding. Suddenly you start to talk about what matters to people rather than the views you all brought with you to the conversation.

What I’ve found is that the feeling of risk increases as you dive beneath the surface into the unsaid, but the trust equally increases. It’s all got to do with how you listen and, very importantly, how you put what you’ve heard on the table. If you do it in a clumsy, judgmental way, you’ve had it. The conversation closes down quicker than a Venus flytrap or sea anemone.

Dick 

So many of us are uncertain that our thoughts are worth sharing. This is certainly true of me – thanks for this and to Pete Burden for encouraging me to share some of my own thinking.

In terms of how we think about ourselves and others, here’s a quote I read recently from Soren Kierkegaard:

“The majority of men are subjective toward themselves and objective towards all others – terribly objective sometimes – but the real task is in fact to be objective towards one’s self and subjective towards all others.”

It reminded me of a person in a Kafka novel who is constantly thwarted by the system ‘for his own good’, a nightmare that can drive you insane or at best sap your energy until you conform or leave.

It is a classic tale of the established system against fresh ideas, perspectives and action from individuals. A tale rooted in power.

I see the story as essentially about the need to reframe the environment of business and society to legitimise the individual to do important things driven by themselves.

This would be a big shift, as it means a re-distribution of power to own and drive activities from the established framework to the individual.

You can see it does already happen in certain situations, mainly in start-up companies and new creative projects, where the established company allows it because it needs the fruits of the new innovations and can accept it by referring to it as Research & Development. The behaviour is contained and the new product is accepted into operation to be treated like a mature product with a mature organisation (rigid and controlling). There is great fear from the minders of the organisation of change and shifts in personal power.

The protagonist in the story, EM is craving for an environment, behaviour and process in business (and society) where the individual has the power to harness the organisation to:

legitimise an idea
identify an objective for its benefit
formulate a project to test this
acquire resources and commitment to implement the project
implement the project
incorporate the benefits into the business
incorporate the learning and energy back into the organisation

To achieve this would need changes in roles, behaviour and power within people, the business, industry and society.

My experience in business has been exhilarating when in start-ups and R&D environments, where this behaviour happens, but it is accompanied by sheer frustration when we tried to roll out the behaviour and product into the established organisation – I used to call this point ‘Mind the Gap’.

I hope Dick that your story is not just accepted as the sad truth, by lonely CEOs, who sit atop the polished corridors and sadly regret their inability to harness the fresh individual spirit.

A wonderful story Dick, its truth seeps into the mind. Its style is like the gentle wisdom of Herman Hesse’s Narcissus and Goldmund. It reminds me of the power of individual spirit and endeavour.

Many thanks,  Dick