“Dialogue – possible between leader and follower?” - Ashridge

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 2: definitional tensions of ‘dialogue’ Two attempts to classify the field more concisely have been provided by Deetz and Simpson (2004) and Stewart and Zediker (2000) as illustrated in Figure 3 below. Figure 3: Classifications of the literature on dialogue 8
Both sets of authors have in common a recognition that some researchers write about dialogue as a way of being, i.e. an ontological perspective that sees dialogic interaction as the locus of meaning and knowledge, whilst others apply normative values by referring to a particular quality of conversation that they term ‘dialogic’. Deetz and Simpson (2004) do not classify Buber specifically. However from personal communication with Deetz (2010) perhaps they would place Buber in the postmodern arena alongside Levinas. I am not convinced however that Buber’s work sits neatly in their model; in fact to me it would appear that Buber might sit in both the critical hermeneutic and postmodern categories and arguably even in the liberal humanism group. Stewart and Zediker (2000) clearly advise Buber’s work sits in the prescriptive category within the dialogue literature. Again I am somewhat sceptical about their classification here because undoubtedly Buber also proposed an ontology based on the pervasiveness of dialogue; “all real living is meeting”, (Buber, 1958:25). The current attempts at classification of the dialogue literature are therefore admirable, making sense of an extremely diverse field. However the difficulty in neatly placing Buber’s work, perhaps considered to be the founder of the field, within these classifications indicates they are best used as rough guides rather than exhaustive, exclusive structures. Given this it is perhaps also helpful to look at ways in which concepts of dialogue appear similar and Anderson et al. (2004b) draw together a number of common themes in the broader dialogue literature and Buber’s work certainly encompassed these elements: • Dialogue as creation; characterised by mystery and surprise • Dialogue as a conversation of voices in tension; voices are different with different opinions and perspectives creating conflict, (see Deetz, 2003) 9
Page 1 and 2: “Dialogue - possible between lead
Page 3 and 4: 2. Background It is difficult for m
Page 5 and 6: 3. Literature Review a. Dialogue Th
Page 7: Figure 1: the historical developmen
Page 11 and 12: academic work linking the two areas
Page 13 and 14: accessible to a pragmatic individua
Page 15 and 16: and Uhl-Bien, 1995) and charismatic
Page 17 and 18: many of their propositions are cert
Page 19 and 20: to leadership theory” (2008:253).
Page 21 and 22: i. Inhibitions to leader-follower d
Page 23 and 24: can easily grow into a feeling that
Page 25 and 26: Research questions, methodology and
Page 27 and 28: A methodology which has grown in us
Page 29 and 30: My experiences of co-operative inqu
Page 31 and 32: • The very ambiguous and uncertai
Page 33 and 34: • As the above points indicate, i
Page 35 and 36: Where next? The process of co-opera
Page 37 and 38: References Anderson, R., Baxter, L.
Page 39 and 40: Habermas, J. (1984), The theory of
Page 41: Stewart, J. and Zediker, K. (2000),

“Dialogue – possible between leader and follower?” - Ashridge

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?