Any useful work on purpose within an organisation can quickly be totally undermined by individual leadership team members expressing cynical views about the process. In large organisations – especially if there has already been work done on purpose which changed little or nothing – a degree of scepticism is both inevitable and very healthy. But any serious engagement with a leadership team demands at the very least a good-faith commitment from all team members to explore what might be possible and what might change. Facilitating a workshop can be extremely helpful as it can flush out deep scepticism and allow constructive dialogue about what really needs to change.
In Blueprint’s thinking, the shift to being purpose-led is always both personal and organisational. At the personal level, it invites everyone to treat others with dignity and respect, as each person is a “someone not a something”. It is one of those situations where everyone has to be part of the change they want to see, inviting and welcoming dialogue and challenge, and being with and alongside others rather than doing things to and for them.
As noted above, becoming purpose-led cannot be forced. People need to be convinced for their own reasons not someone else’s that becoming purpose-led will create a better business that is also better for society and better for people. Hence allowing time and space for dialogue and for minds and hearts to change is crucial, whilst respecting the diversity of views and honestly held different perspectives which need to be understood and in the end sufficiently reconciled if the work is to proceed with integrity.
The difference between dialogue and discussion
In his book the 5th Discipline, Peter Senge draws out an interesting distinction between discussion and dialogue, building on the work of the quantum theorist David Bohm.
He compares the discussion to a game such as ping pong where different points of view are batted back and forth:
Clearly, this can be useful. Yet the purpose of a game is normally ‘to win’ and in this case winning means to have one’s views accepted by the group. You might occasionally accept part of another person’s view in order to strengthen your own, but you fundamentally want your view to prevail.
He goes on to compare this with dialogue:
In dialogue, a group explores complex difficult issues from many points of view. Individuals suspend their assumptions but they communicate their assumptions freely. The result is a free exploration that brings to the surface the full depth of people’s experience and thought, and yet can move beyond their individual views.
Dialogue helps people observe their own thinking, helping them to uncover underlying assumptions and see that it is the ideas and assumptions and the way they hold on to them that are in conflict.
He outlines the conditions to enable good dialogue which include:
For more on dialogue see:
Tips for facilitating quality dialogue