1. Michelli
Carmel
Collado
UTS:
Autumn
2014
Dialogue: An Agent of Change
From novels to movies, fiction is rife with plot complications arising from
miscommunication; Romeo and Juliet is a classic example. History has also seen wars waged,
empires broken and leaders defeated due to misspoken or misinterpreted directives. Even in
daily life, messages have tremendous potential to spell the difference between success and
failure that there are fierce debates on the use of the seemingly trivial Oxford comma due to
its potential to complicate meaning. In an organisational setting, where communication is
considered a remedy for problems and an inexorable part of daily life (Tourish & Hargie
2004), miscommunication also proves to have far-reaching consequences. To combat this,
academics agree that leaders and employees must engage in dialogic communication.
Dialogue is considered the most effective form of sending and receiving messages accurately
and has the potential to transform an organisation (Isaacs 1999, Schein 1993, Senge 1994).
The transformational power of dialogue is due to its ability to create a collective
consciousness that leads to collective creativity. It can also expose cultural differences and
provide the means to overcome them. When organisations communicate externally, often
through social media, dialogue also enables them to engage with stakeholders more
effectively and initiate positive change internally.
When people enter situations, they bring with them their own unique perspective. Barrett &
Mills (2008) found, for example, that researchers unwittingly allow their own subjective
views to affect qualitative inquiries. The same may be said for individuals, teams and their
organisation as a whole. Human beings have a tendency to categorise and judge events and to
accept these assumptions as their reality (Senge 1994). When these individual realities clash,
as they often do, conflict ensues leading to a fragmented organisation. Multiple academic
literature agree that fragmented organisations cannot thrive – a shared meaning and a
common goal must be present (Isaacs 1999). Dialogue can lead people into this shared path
because when they engage in dialogue, they immerse themselves in ideas different from their
own. They then become open to being influenced by factors they never even considered
(Raelin 2012). Dialogue, thus, transforms an organisation by fostering collective mindfulness
(Senge 1994) and creating a united group that is far more effective than a fragmented one.
Dialogue, in this sense, is two-pronged. It allows for social engagement while giving the
individual the chance to be introspective. When individuals engage in dialogue, they become

2. Michelli
Carmel
Collado
UTS:
Autumn
2014
aware of their own thought processes, thereby, thinking and communicating more clearly
(Schein 1993). As long as they set aside their own vulnerability and enter the conversation
with humility, they can appreciate each other’s own unique perspective (Raelin 2012). More
than an excellent tool for effective communication and problem solving, dialogue coordinates
‘without the artificial, tedious process of decision making.’ It promotes alignment in action
that fosters natural individual action that ‘fit into a larger whole’ (Senge 1994, p. 358). One
consequence of this is collective creativity or the springing forth of ideas from the interaction
of individuals. Collective creativity is attributed to the group as a whole without the
possibility of tracing the contribution back to any one person (Parjanen 2012). Creativity is
highly beneficial and transformative for any organisation as it is crucial in gaining
competitive advantage in any business. Without creativity, whether in product development
or leadership style, organisations risk falling behind.
Another transformational aspect of dialogue is its ability to expose cultural differences.
Gergen, Gergen & Barrett (2004) argue that ‘the contribution of any particular act of speech
to dialogic coordination is contingent on its placement within a cultural context.’ A study on
intercultural communication, for example, found that when talking to someone of a different
nationality, individuals often allow stereotypes to shape their perceptions. What often results
is a feeling of inferiority or superiority toward their conversation partners, which leads to
inauthentic forms of communication (Leonardi & Lluesma 2013). The study exposes a truth
that we may be uncomfortable to deal with and admit; we have biases we unconsciously
allow to control our decisions. These biases may be subtle such as a change in tone or pace
when speaking, or they may be blatant and damaging. Being aware of these biases and their
potential to create misunderstandings may pave the way for authentic dialogue, which,
according to Kohlrieser (2006), is the most effective type of dialogue. Authentic dialogue is
about connecting with whomever we are speaking to, whilst having the freedom to question
rather than debate. When rich and unrestricted conversations arise despite of, or even because
of, diversity, authentic dialogue is achieved.
Diversity also becomes problematic when workers, rather than blend into the organizational
culture seamlessly, still strongly identify with their own national culture (Gibbs 2009). One
implication is that a worker from a high-power distance country, that is, someone with a high
deference for authority, (Hofstede 1980) may find it difficult to communicate with leaders.

3. Michelli
Carmel
Collado
UTS:
Autumn
2014
In the aviation industry, for example, power distance and plane crashes were found to be
closely related. In other words, miscommunication in the cockpit due to hierarchy has been
known to lead to tragedy (Gladwell 2008). While the Hofstede model and the study
discussed by Gladwell show compelling empirical evidence, they are generalisations that may
not be true at the individual level. Leadership communication styles such as mindfulness
(Dunoon & Langer 2012) and organisational conversation (Groysberg & Slind 2012),
therefore, must be adjusted and personalised to more effectively combat cultural barriers and
promote authentic dialogue.
Apart from effective internal communication, effective external communication is also
critical for an organisation’s success. Organisations often communicate with clients,
suppliers, shareholders, other businesses, government agencies and the general public.
According to Kent & Taylor (1998), the organisation must provide an accessible means of
communication that provides outsiders the opportunity to ask questions and provide
comments and feedback. One such avenue for this is social media. From a public relations
perspective, social media is a very cost-effective way of bolstering corporate image and
building relationships. It also enables organisations to communicate with ‘marginalised
voices’ it otherwise would not be able to reach (McAllister 2012). Social media sites such as
Facebook and Twitter allow users to be interactive, as opposed to static websites (Men &
Tsai 2011). Engaging in external dialogue through social media, therefore, has
transformational value.
Organisations often use social media for product promotions, corporate announcements and
information-seeking from the public (Men & Tsai 2011). Studies of American Universities
found that online public relations have an effect on external relationships, retention rates and
‘levels of college responsiveness to resource-dependent stakeholders’ (McAllister 2012 p.
319). Dialogue, in this sense, has a pervasive effect from the administration to the individual
lives of students. Similarly, news programs rely heavily on social media to engage viewers.
CNN, for example, has a program called iReport, which seeks independent contributions
from viewers all over the world. On Facebook, news stories are delivered as status updates,
which can be commented on, liked or shared. One study even found that discussions on a
particular TV news show’s Facebook page influenced the topics covered in the broadcast
(Jacobson 2013). Through social media, the organisation can place its finger on the pulse of

4. Michelli
Carmel
Collado
UTS:
Autumn
2014
the audience and cater to them more appropriately. The audience, on the other hand, is able to
influence news media outlets to focus on stories they truly care about.
The free flow of ideas has never been more important than today – the information age.
Knowledge has tremendous value in any business of any scale and dialogue facilitates the
exchange. Dialogue is an oxymoron; it seeks to create a collective consciousness by
expressing individual idiosyncrasies; it promotes a single culture by valuing and honoring
differences in beliefs and customs; dialogue also compels an organisation to look externally
in order to mend and improve itself internally. The transformational power of dialogue lies in
its ability engage a variety of sources to achieve a common goal. It promotes change through
awareness of the challenges and their corresponding solutions. It also harnesses a collective
power, the whole of which is greater than the sum of its parts. Different academic literature
have different views on the most effective implementation of dialogue and no one leader,
employee or organization has perfected it. This is hardly surprising as anything that hinges on
human behavior is bound to be irrational and unpredictable, but that is also the beauty of it.
Dialogic communication is both an empowering and humbling experience because every
encounter is unique, and every moment holds infinite potential for transformation and
improvement.

5. Michelli
Carmel
Collado
UTS:
Autumn
2014
Bibiliography
Barrett, M, Mills, J, 2009, ‘The inter-reflexive possibilities of dual observations: an account
from and through experience’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol.
22, no. 4, pp.417-429.
Dunoon, D, Langer E, 2012, ‘Mindful leadership communication: three keys for action’,
Training and Development, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 12-14.
Gergen, K, Gergen, M, Barrett, F, 2004, The Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse,
Sage, London.
Gibbs, J, 2009, ‘Culture as kaleidoscope: navigating cultural tensions in global
collaboration’, Proceedings of the ACM International Workshop on Intercultural
Collaboration, pp. 89-98.
Gladwell, M, 2008, Outliers, Little, Brown and Company, New York.
Groysberg, B, Slind M, 2012, ‘Leadership is a conversation’, Harvard Business Review, vol.
90, no. 6, pp76-80.
Hofstede, G, 1980, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related
Value, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
Isaacs, W, 1999, Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together: A Pioneering Approach to
Communicating in Business and Life, Currency, New York.
Jacobson, S, 2013, ‘Does audience participation on Facebook influence the news agenda? A
case study of the Rachel Maddow show’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, vol.
57, no. 3 pp. 338-355.
Kent, M, Taylor, M, 1998, ‘Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web’,
Public Relations Review, vol. 24, no. 3, pp.321-334.
Kohlrieser, George. 2006. The Power of Authentic Dialogue. Leader to Leader, Executive
Forum.
Leonardi P, Lluesma C, 2013, ‘Occupational Stereotypes, perceived status differences, and
Intercultural communication in global organization, Communuication Monographs, vol. 80,
no. 4, pp. 478-501.

6. Michelli
Carmel
Collado
UTS:
Autumn
2014
McAllister, S, 2012, ‘How the World’s top universities provide dialogic forums for
marginalized voices’, Public Relations Review, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 319-327.
Men, L, & Tsai, W, 2011, ‘How companies cultivate relationships with publics on social
network sites: Evidence from China and the United States’, Public Relations Review, vol. 38,
pp. 723-730.
Parjanen, S, 2012, ‘Experiencing creativity in the organization: from individual creativity to
collective creativity’, Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge and Management,
vol. 2, pp. 109-120.
Raelin, A 2012, ‘Dialogue and deliberation as expressions of democratic leadership in
participatory organizational change’, Journal of International Change Management, vol. 25,
no. 1, pp. 7-23.
Schein, E, 1993, ‘On dialogue, culture and organizational learning’, Organizational
Dynamics, vol. 22, no.2 pp. 40-51.
Senge, P, Kleiner, A, Roberts, C, Ross, R, Smith, B, 1994, The Fifth Disciple Fieldbook,
Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.
Tourish, D, Hargie, O, 2002, ‘Communication Audits: The Key to Building World Class
Communication Systems’, Handbook of Corporate Communcaiton and Public Relations,
Routledge, London.