Neosocratic dialogues reflection in learning organizations

Reflection in learning organizations: Neosocratic Dialogue

(Artur Massana, Vander Lemes)

Abstract
Purpose The literature about the learning organizations has pointed up the
importance of the dialogue as an instrument for improving the
capacity of analysis in organizations. This article presents a
dialectic model – neosocratic dialogue - aimed at analyzing the
cognitive, normative and emotional dimensions related to a
concept by means of the intensive inquiry of an example given by
one of the participants.

Design/ The methodological aspects of the dialectic model are illustrated
methodology/ with a real neosocratic dialogue facilitated by one of the authors
approach around the question: “what is customer orientation?”

Findings The profits of this methodology are: training of key competencies
for leaders support the organizational learning; institutionalization
of the business ethics; generation of shared visions; critical
review of tacit mental models.

Orinality / It defends the value of the dialectic itself in organizations
Value
Key words Neosocratic Dialogue, learning organization, business ethics
Category Case study

1. Introduction

The first sentence of Aristotle’s Rhetoric is: “Rhetoric is the counterpoint of dialectic”.
In this communication we will present a dialectical model that can be used within
organizations to provide the necessary counterpoint to the ethos of constructive debate
and rhetoric.
Managers are well trained to solve problems, to search for optimal solutions and carry
them out. This instrumental performance aimed at achieving predetermined results is
the basis of efficiency in organizational action.
However, the exclusiveness of this instrumental behavior is precisely the point that must
be questioned (Kessels et al., 2004). Organizations need to build spaces for reflection
where a substantial rationality can take place in order to allow a collective inquiry on
the several spheres that generate meaningful actions in the organization, such as: vision,
values and mental models.
The necessity of such spaces has been pointed up not only by the practical Philosophy
(Arnaiz, 2004). The literature on learning organizations (Nonaka, 1991; Senge, 1992;
Senge et al., 1994) has sufficiently stressed the necessity of improving the capacity of
analysis and the quality of collective thinking in organizations indicating Dialectic as a
suitable tool to achieve this. Inspired by the David Bohm’s pioneer work (Bohm, 2004)
a dialectical method has been developed in the latest years that focuses on the
generation of conversational spaces that allow the art of thinking together in
organizations (William, 1999).

But what might be the added value of a Neosocratic Dialogue? According to our
experience as facilitators in organizations the added value might be found in two
different levels: conceptual and development of competencies.
At the conceptual level we should consider an organization as a group of people around
a great idea. But sometimes, the words that translate these ideas get worn out. A good
dialogue around one of the organization’s ideas might create a new motivating
consensus on an essential aspect of the business or the organizational mission.
At the level of development of competencies, the experience of participating in a
Neosocratic dialogue invites us to put in practice new behaviors: active listening,
stimulation and comprehension of different viewpoints, ability to review critically our
own prejudices and assumptions, and tools for building consensus in teams.
This paper illustrates the method of Neosocratic dialogue through the analysis of a
concrete case.

2. Socratic
and
Neosocratic
Dialogue

The dialectical model to be presented has its roots in the neokantian tradition. It was
first developed by Leonard Nelson (1882-1927) and updated by Gustav Heckmann
(1898-1996) as a tool to teach philosophy in a Socratic spirit to graduate students. This
dialectical model has been successfully applied in organizational settings in order to
create space for reflection around central complex issues such as visions, values and
mental models (Kessels, 2001).
Neosocratic dialogues have the same features that differentiate them from the Socratic
Dialogues as recorded in the platonic tradition, namely: Neosocratic conversations are a
group dynamic not a one-to-one conversation; the role of the facilitator is just helping
the group to reach a consensus (Socrates in the Platonic dialogues has often a leading
role); the usage of auxiliary dialogues to discuss strategic issues or the emotional
aspects of the content dialogue, the intensive use of public writing to focus and clarify
continuously the conversation. Nevertheless, Neosocratic dialogues are profoundly
Socratic in their mayeutic spirit and in their refusal to consider other authorities than the
use of the collective reason. (for a detailed discussion see: Leal, 2001).

3. Neosocratic
Dialogue

The Neosocratic dialogue that we present at this section was facilitated by one of the
authors. It took place in two meetings of 3,5 hours each with an interval of one week.
The group consisted of four participants of different organizations: an entrepreneur, a
public organization’s manager, a head of customer services in a private organization and
a sociological researcher in a public organization.
A Neosocratic dialogue follows a methodology that is usually illustrated with an
hourglass diagram (Kessels, 2001). The dialogue begins with a question that must
address an issue of central importance for the organization.
The question directs the collective inquiry for
conceptual clarification and provides a concrete
goal: reaching an answer that must be
consensual. The question is formulated together
with the managers in the organization previously
to the dialogue (Kessels et al. 2004). The
question is the lens that focuses the inquiry

The Hourglass diagram illustrates the method of
a Neosocratic dialogue

assuring that all participants research towards the same direction.

The question: What is customer orientation?

The only suitable questions to start a Neosocratic dialogue are those that can be
answered by means of the collective use of reason – without any empirical,
psychological or historical researches (Gronke, 2005b).
The question assumes a certain precomprehension about the subject of inquiry and this
allows the group to find concrete examples related to the topic. The dialogical process
tries to clarify this knowledge collectively and to verify whether the participant’s
assumptions are shared with the team (Kopfwerk Berlin, 2005).
The question must be always a second order question (Kessels, 2001). The first order
questions are addressed to solve a problem and to activate our instrumental rationality.
The second order questions point at the mental tools that we use to solve concrete
problems and can lead to a substantial use of reason.

The example: Cruising in Miami

The second step consists in finding an example that will help the team to build their
consensus. A Neosocratic dialogue never tries to answer a question directly, but
approaches it by means of an example that embodies the topic of inquiry. The example
is a significant story for the organization and it is voluntarily provided by one of the
participants who must have experienced it herself and lived through it. This requirement
ensures the emotional and logical depth of the inquiry. Without an example – that’s the
Kantian and Socratic foundations (Heckmann, 1974) - the reflection runs the risk of
losing itself into blind abstractions.
The participants in this Neosocratic dialogue chose an example of customer orientation
extracted from the experience of one of the participants. The first challenge for the team
was to pick up an example that they considered the most suitable to illustrate the
concept they are trying to clarify. After evaluating different reasons the group arrived to
the first consensus that the best example was: Cruising in Miami.

Cruising in Miami
“I used to work as help desk personnel for an airline company in Basel airport,
Switzerland. Once in a Summer day, I was alone at the help desk when an elderly
couple came to check in and showed me their flight reservation.
I checked their reservation and all their flight connections before arriving in Miami for
their Caribbean cruise.
Then I realized that they wouldn't arrive in time in Miami to reach their cruise.
I decided to tell them the truth:
”Listen, if you board this flight from Basel to Madrid now, you won't be able to take the
next flight connection to Miami, because it's overbooked".
In fact, according to the company's standards, we were not allowed to give any
information about overbooking. But I did it because they were elderly people.
I warned them that they would be more than a week in Miami waiting for the next
cruiser. They got very upset.... But I kept calm, self-controlled and professional. I didn't
speak ill of the company neither reacted at the clients’ anger.
Then I told them step by step all the consequences they should expect if they decided to
take the flight.

They listened to me, took some time for deliberation and made up their minds. Finally
they decided not to board. Then I gave them a document certifying that they had not
been accepted in the flight and I wrote an internal note to the their travel agent through
the reservation system. They went back home.
Three days later they brought me a bottle of wine. Everything was settled up. They came
to show their gratitude for the arrangements I had made and for the company's service.

The judgments

Once the example is given and well-understood by all participants, the example giver
elaborates her judgment, a core statement of the form: “I think this is a case of….
because…” that summarizes her point of view on the issue.

The example giver’s judgment
I think this example is a case of customer orientation because:
• I analyzed the concrete case and realized that it was about elderly people and they
had a travel pack with different companies;
• I went further than my strict obligations and I had time to check it out;
• I took the customers’ global context into consideration;
• I gave priority to the customers’ and the company’s interests before the standards

The collective inquiry will proceed focusing on this core statement, and it will try to
discover and critically validate –or not- the tacit assumptions that are behind the
judgment provided by the example giver. A Neosocratic dialogue follows the principles
of critical Philosophy that states that the best road to a conceptual inquiry always
resides in the transcendental analysis of experiential judgments, then “they are a much
better starting point than abstract principles. They are in a better position just because
they are full of experience and related to situations extracted from real life. For this
reason they are much more human and reasonable” (Leal, 1988b).
Nelson (1922) named this process of reconstructing the tacit assumptions that ground
our usage of important concepts: regressive abstraction. The process of regressive
abstraction can be illustrated by a “regressive syllogism”: the conclusion of the
syllogism is the judgment provided by the example giver. The minor premise is
constituted by the data from the example that grounds the judgment. Finally, the major
premise is the tacit norm and assumption that warranted the judgment in the first place.
For instance:
o Conclusion: This story is a case of costumer orientation (Example giver’s
judgment)
o Minor Premise: In the story I correctly overlooked a company standards in order
to satisfy the real interest of the clients and the company (Data provided by the
example)
o Major Premise: If a company standards is overlooked in order to satisfy the
client’s and the company’s interests then we have a case of customer orientation
(Tacit norm that the example giver used in order to ground his judgment)
The clarification of the judgment provided by the example giver by means of regressive
syllogisms make explicit to the example giver her implicit preknowledge about the
concept, opening new ways for reflection. Now the dialectical inquiry can focus either
on the minor premise and challenge the data from the example, for instance: Is it true

that the client’s and the company’s interests have been satisfied? ¿Why does the
example giver think so? Which are her reasons to support her statement?
Another possible way is to focus on the major premise and challenge the understanding
of the concept of “customer orientation” that was tacit in the example giver’s judgment:
Is it true that if one gives priority to the customers’ and the company’s interests before
the standards, then we can talk about customer orientation? Aren’t there standards
precisely to guarantee the customer orientation? Is an employer allowed to ignore the
standards for the sake of customer orientation?

The facilitator has to be aware of these two different levels to clarify continuously the
Socratic dialogue (Kessels et al., 2004), although her main responsibility is to push the
reflection forward to an explicit consensus on the issue addressed by the question: What
is customer orientation in this company?
Another possibility to rebuild the intellectual scaffolding behind the judgment and
check its validity using the Toulmin’s model (Kofwerk Berlin, 2005. Gronke, 2005b.
Toulmin, 1958).

The dialectical phase

A Neosocratic dialogue aspires to go beyond the simple verification of the example
giver’s judgment. In fact it struggles for constructing a principle, this means, finding a
common assumption, a shared value upon which a consensus can be reached (Leal,
2000).
The facilitator in this phase can use different methods to go with the group toward the
construction of a consensus – or the detailed map of the dissension – (Kopfwerk Berlin,
2004). The facilitator can proceed with a phenomenological approach, i.e. identifying
phenomena in the example that show or throw light upon the characteristics of the
inquired concept.
Alternatively, the dialogue can focus on the critical analysis of the judgment formulated
by the example giver, which leads to a more essentialist approach. Finally, the process
can be continued recollecting subsidiary questions, in other words, those questions that
might be first answered in order to help answering the initial question.
The most common approach is the essentialist, this means, to ask other participants to
elaborate their own judgments on the example and use this material to reach the
consensus. In this case, the facilitator presented the possibilities to the group and they
chose the essentialist approach.
After all participants gave their own judgment about the case, the dialectical phase
started. As mentioned in the literature on Neosocratic Dialogue, the group soon reached
the state of aporesis (Kessels et al., 2004). Several ways for inquiry came up and the
thinking process got accelerated, the mutual understanding and the communication
became more difficult as each one tried to answer different questions: a participant
asked himself where the customer orientation started in this case; another inquired the
difference between customer orientation and customer attention.
In this phase of the conversation a critical factor for the success is to distinguish
correctly among different levels of dialogue:
o Content dialogue: is the main conversation addressed to answer the main
question
o Metadialogue: Dialogue around group dynamics, Socratic Dialogue
methodology or interpersonal relationship between participants.

o Strategic dialogue: Dialogue about the best strategy for the group to follow in
order to reach consensus. (Kessels, 2001)

The group formulated then some subsidiary questions:
Q1: When did the customer orientation start in this example?
Q2: Is customer orientation the same as customer attention?
Q3: Where can we find the skills, attitudes and environmental conditions of possibility
related to the customer orientation in this example?

The group considered that the third question would be the best subsidiary question to
answer the initial question. However, they decided to explore first the second question
during 15 minutes. As we will see, they didn’t have time to return to the first question.
The next step consisted then in exploring the second question reviewing the example.
They should determine where in the example they could identify customer orientation
and where they could find customer attention. As we can see the constant reference to
the case makes the dialogue much easier, since it keeps the conceptual analysis
anchored to a concrete reality. The participants in a Neosocratic dialogue are very often
surprised by the ability to reach a consensus in an easier way. This might be explained
by the fact that they can share concrete experiences with others and not only abstract
ideas (Boele, 1997).
The analysis of the case generated two different feelings in the group. Some members
considered that “customer attention” and “customer orientation” were two sides of the
same coin. Others considered that the relationship between “customer attention” and
“customer orientation” should be defined as a part-whole relationship. According to this
feeling, “customer attention” refers to certain behaviors, on the other hand, “customer
orientation” is a more holistic and attitudinal concept (it requires a global vision,
empathy and anticipation).
The group focused on clarifying these two concepts, trying to determine the meaning of
customer orientation related to the boundaries with the concept of customer attention.
This process brought a lot of information to the group. This information was recollected
in several “mind maps” where the facilitator wrote down all the intuitions of the group.
Finally, the time for content dialogue ended and the facilitator invited each participant
to give a definition of “customer orientation” considering the several elements that had
just been discussed during the dialogue. The results were expressed in the following
way:

Definitions of client orientation
Participant 1: customer orientation is what leads us from the correction to the
excellence (authentic attitude, real commitment, proactivity) in a good customer
attention.
Participant 2: Customer orientation is the organization’s predefined concept based on
the experience of what the customer should receive not only through the direct personal
relationship, but also through the indirect relationship while using the services offered
by the organization.
Participant 3: Customer orientation is an authentic commitment with the customer’s
deepest needs. This commitment is to be carried out in a professional and responsible
way.
Participant 4: Customer orientation is the general relational framework in which the
process aimed at satisfying the customer’s deepest needs take place by means of a set of

technical skills and attitudinal abilities related to empathy, real commitment and
responsibility.

Our professional experience as facilitators of Socratic Dialogues tells us that if
sufficient time is provided the team will end up reaching a consensus or alternatively it
will end up with a converging set of points of view on the issue. In certain cases, the
Socratic dialogue has ungrounded deep divergences in opinion that now can be
explicitly handled by the organization.

Final Metadialogue

The dialogue ended with a metadialogue in which the facilitator asked all participants to
summarize in one word how they had lived the experience. The recollected words were:
amplitude, potentiality, connection, deconstruction and surprise. For instance, one of the
participants (expert in training on customer orientation) commented: “when you take a
training on customer attention in the organizations you are told how you have to guide
yourself. In fact there are both this relationship with the customer and this plus. This
plus is the leeway between the standards and the customer. You have the standards, you
know that the standards are there, but there are always exceptions. This exception
makes this plus. This is what brings you nearer to the excellence and the customer
orientation is this plus”. Another participant commented that “maybe what a handbook
definition lacks and doesn’t usually consider is the question: to which extent are
customers asked what their deep needs are in order to understand them?”

4. Conclusion:
the
uses
of
Neosocratic
dialogues
within

organizations

Finally, we can ask ourselves what value dialectics has as a discipline to be practiced
within organizations, or alternatively: what is the source of its necessity as a
“counterpoint of Rhetoric” in Aristotle’s words?
From our point of view dialectics as a discipline helps leaders to develop competencies
required for the building of learning organizations. Bolten (2001) reports that managers
that participate in Neosocratic dialogues mimic some facilitator’s techniques later with
their teams, such as active listening and the use of probing questions. Furthermore, they
introduce new practices in their team meetings in order to stimulate divergent thinking,
a higher level of collective intelligence and the careful exploration of hidden
assumptions.
Neosocratic dialogues might also be used to reach consensus around important issues
(values, competencies, visions) and it can help critically assessing tacit mental models.
Finally it can be an instrument to institutionalize the business ethics of a company when
the question addressed by the Socratic dialogue has an ethical component (e.g. What is
professional integrity?).

Bibliography

Argyris, C. (1991), “Teaching Smart People How to Learn”, Harvard Business Review,
Maig – Juny, 1991, pp. 99-109.

Aristòtil (1995), Ètica Nicomaquea, Fundació Bernat Metge, Barcelona.

Arnaiz, G. (2004), “La práctica Filosófica en las Organizaciones: una aproximación”, El
Búho, Revista electronica de la Asociación Andaluza de filosofía, available at:
http://elbuho.aafi.es/buho5/gabriel.pdf (accessed 28 April 2011)

Bohm, D. (2004), On Dialogue, Routledge, Oxon.

Boele, D. (1997), “The ‘Benefits’ of a Socratic Dialogue Or: Which Results Can We
Promise?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, Vol. XVII, No. 3, pp. 49-
70.

Bolten, H. (2001), “Managers Develop Moral Accountability: The Impact of Socratic
Dialogue”, Reason In Practice, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 21-34.

Garvin, D.A., Edmodson, A.C., Gino, F. (2008), “Is Yours a Learning Organization?”,
Harvard Business Review, March, 2008, pp. 109-116.

Gronke, H. (2005a), “Socratic Dialogue or Para-Socratic Dialogue? Socratic-Oriented
Dialogue as the Third Wary” in Brune, J.P. Krohn, D. (eds), Socratic Dialogue and
Ethics, Lit Verlag, Münster, pp. 24-35.

Gronke, H. (2005b), “First things first! Analytic and Strategic phases in Socratic
Dialogue”, in Brune, J.P. Krohn, D. (eds), Socratic Dialogue and Ethics, Lit Verlag,
Münster, pp.160-186.

Heckmann, G. (1974), “Introducción”, in Nelson, A. Cuatro ensayos de filosofía crítica,
Ed. Sudamericana, Buenos Aires.

Heckmann, G. (2004), “Six pedagogical measures and Socratic facilitation”, in Saran,
R. Neisser, B., Enquiring minds. Socratic dialogue in education, Trentham Books,
Stoke on Trent-UK, pp. 107-120.

Herrestad, H. (2002), “Short Socratic Dialogue”, in Anders, H. Svare, H. (eds),
Philosophy in Society, Papers presented to the Sixth International Conference on
Philosophy in Practice, Unipubforlag, Oslo, pp. 91-102.

Kessels, J. (2001), Die Macht der Argumente, Die sokratische Methode der
Gerprächsführung in der Unternehmenspraxis, Beltz Verlarg, Weinheim/Basel.

Kessels, J. (2005), “Beyond Appearances: Plato’s Myth of the Cave Revisited”, in
Brune, J.P. Krohn, D. (eds), Socratic Dialogue and Ethics, Lit Verlag, Münster, pp. 63-
87.

Kessels, J., Boers, E. Mostert, P. (2004), Free space. Philosophy in organisations,
Boom, Amsterdam.

Kessels, J. Boers, E. Mostert, P. (2008), Free Space. Fieldbook, Boom, Amsterdam.

Kopfwerk Berlin, (2004), “The Methodology of Socratic Dialogue”, in Shipley, P.
Mason, H. (eds), Ethics and Socratic Dialogue in Civil Society, Lit Verlag, Münster, pp.
148-168.

Kopfwerk Berlin, (2005), “The Methodology of Socratic Dialogue – Regressive
Abstraction – How to ask for and find philosophical knowledge”, in Brune, J.P. Krohn,
D. (eds), Socratic Dialogue and Ethics, Lit Verlag, Münster, pp. 88-111.

Laurie, N. (2001), “How Managers Can Learn Through Dialogue: A Concrete Case”, in
Curnow, T. (ed), Thinking Through Dialogue, Practical Philosophy Press, Oxford.

Leal, F. (1998a): “The future of critical philosophy”. Occasional Working Papers in
Ethics and the Critical Philosopy, Vol 1, pp.28-35.

Leal, F. (1998b): “What is the Link between the Critical Philosophy and the Socratic
Dialogue?”, Occasional Working Papers in Ethics and the Critical Philosophy, Vol 1,
pp. 36-41.

Leal, F. (2000): “The relation between value conflicts and the socratic dialogue”,
Occasional Working Papers in Ethics and the Critical Philosophy. Vol 2, pp. 35-50.

Leal, F. (2001), “El diálogo socrático como método de investigación de teorías
implícitas”, in Matute, E. Romo-Beltrán, R.M. (eds), Los Retos de la Educación en el
Siglo XXI, Universidad de Guadalajara, México, pp. 179-207.

Lozano, J.M. (1997), Ètica i Empresa, Proa, Barcelona.

Marinoff, L. (2002), Philosophical Practice, Academic Press, New York.

Miller, S. (2000), “Critical Philosophy as a demand for resistance against National
Socialism”, Occasional Working Papers in Ethics and the Critical Philosophy, Vol 1.

Nelson, L. (1910), “The Art of Philosophising”, in Nelson, L. (1965), The Socratic
Method and Critical Philosophy, Selected Essays, Dover, New York.

Nelson, L. (1922), “The Socratic Method” in Nelson, L. (1965), The Socratic Method
and Critical Philosophy, Selected Essays. Dover: New York.

Nonaka, Ikujiro. (1991), “The Knowledge-Creating Company”. Harvard Business
Review. Novembre – Desembre, pp. 96-104.

Payne, L.P. (1994), “Managing for Organizational Integrity”, Harvard Business Review,
Març-Abril, pp. 106-117.

Senge, P. (1992), La Quinta Disciplina. El arte y la práctica de la organización abierta
al aprendizaje, Granica, Barcelona.

Senge, P. Ross, R. Smith, B. Roberts, C. Kleiner, A. (1994), The Fifth Discipline.
Fieldbook. Strategies and tools for building a learning organization, Doubleday, New
York.

Shipley, P., Leal. F. (2005), “The Perils of Practice: A Critical View of The Practical
Turn in Contemporary Philosophy”, in Brune, P.J., Krohn, D. (eds), Socratic Dialogue
and Ethics, Lit Verlag, Münster, pp. 117-139.

Toulmin, S. (1958), The uses of argument, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

William, I. (1999), Dialogue and the art of Thinking Together, Currency, New York.

Neosocratic dialogues reflection in learning organizations

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Neosocratic dialogues reflection in learning organizations

Ähnlich wie Neosocratic dialogues reflection in learning organizations (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Neosocratic dialogues reflection in learning organizations