__________________________________________________________
Using Dialogue for
Crossing Boundaries
Tony Page
Unpublished draft, August 1999
__________________________________________________________
What is Dialogue and why is it useful?
This is a question I have been grappling with for some years now. I have
realised that many people from different walks of life have come to the
conclusion that a certain special quality of conversation (labelled Dialogue)
between people can be attained, which has a transformative effect, enabling
profound insights and changes in attitude. Such conversations are most
difficult and perhaps most important when people on different sides of the
fence are experiencing the divisive effects of change (eg. between managers and
workers, sales and production, HR and operations, customers and employees).
Clearly it would be important for leaders, coaches, facilitators and
consultants interested in change to understand how to achieve conversations of
this kind.
This article is intended to capture
what I have been learning over recent years about what Dialogue is and how to
create the conditions for it to take place.
____________________________________
Dialogue is defined in my dictionary as a
conversation between two or more people, which sounds unremarkable, but
sometimes we use the word in a special and more mysterious way, conveying a
special experience of contact, meaning, synergy, alignment between people. I
have felt drawn to this second idea of Dialogue, sensing that it must be
important, even perhaps a crucial ingredient for anyone interested in managing
change.
In SmithKline Beecham
(1994-5)
The earliest time I remember thinking of
Dialogue in this second, special way was in 1994. Tony Coyle and I had written
an article called "Consulting with the Flow", and I now feel this was
attempting to describe an experience of Dialogue that had been occurring between
us in the midst of a corporate change programme. Our work together was
characterised by a special alignment. It felt like we were almost able to read
one another's minds. We were inhabiting one another's thought process,
producing new and creative thought, and each being somehow changed in ourselves
by this thinking between us.
Tony told me about a book he had
previously read by David Bohm, a leading physicist, and bought me four or five
books by Bohm to read, including "Unfolding Meaning - a weekend of
dialogue with David Bohm" based on a weekend of group conversation in a
Cotswolds Hotel in May 1984 .
Shortly after this in April 1995, Tom
Kaney, the HR/OD Director from SmithKline Beecham in the US invited me to join
a group of the company's "coach/trainers" at the Runnymede Hotel,
Egham, near Heathrow, for a 24 hour get together, as a kind of thank you,
stock-taking and teambuilding for people who had worked hard , each in their
own way, to deliver the company Simply Better Way programme. He titled it a
"Champions of Change" meeting and hired Garth Spiers as facilitator
and intended for us to spend a day in "dialogue".
Twelve of us met over dinner in the
At one point we took turns to write our
emerging thoughts on flipchart. Here is an extract from the flipcharts:
During initial
dialogue
During this conversation I became
disorientated, losing my sense of time and location. There was an intensity to
this, and it felt like we were building up thinking and shared understanding
together, in the centre of the circle. I was very excited by this but
recognised not everyone in the group felt comfortable and there was an
eagerness for the day to produce some actions. We noted next steps on the
flipchart, but the results were pretty loose:
Next steps
We decided that each of us should reflect
on the day and send a note to the others during the next few days. Here are
some of the comments:
After this session a smaller group met up
on two further occasions. Only 3 people turned up on the second occasion, work
pressures were blamed but I think we were confused about the role of dialogue.
It felt low priority to people and a bit of a luxury. A planned 6 month reunion
in October was cancelled with a note from Tom Kaney as follows:
Dear (almost) dead poets society
Having been the one who started this
process, I'm sorry to see it trail off but accept that it had its place, time
and value for us and has served a good purpose. To return to my original vision
for it, it was to bring us together to further develop our sense of community
as we continue to facilitate many profound cultural changes in the company….
..all the best to each of you as you
continue the journey. Let's continue to find ways to stay connected and build
on the foundation of community and team spirit.
Best regards
Tom
I was left with the feeling that Dialogue
is a very vulnerable baby, and in today's corporate environment it would need a
great deal of protection to stay alive. Perhaps what we lacked was a pressing
need, such as a deep seated conflict, to which we could apply the power of
Dialogue. And maybe I was interested in the softer form of Dialogue which
helped us to access creativity in the space between people.
Around this time, in the winter of 94/95,
I had identified in my learning diary that Dialogue was the essence of my work.
By this I meant my work consists of having conversations with clients that help
them find what really matters deeply to them, surfacing the values which guide
their actions and their lives. I felt that dialogues had the effect of building
relationships, producing value for a client and, importantly for a consultant,
generating work. I my book Diary of a Change Agent I referred often to
generative conversations, which are probably just another term for Dialogue.
A seminar for change
agents (1997-8)
During the early part of 1997, some
months after Diary of a Change Agent was published, I received an Email from a
London-based consultant called Robin Wood, saying "why don't we hold
seminar on Dialogue. If you're interested give me a call". This lead to a
series of generative conversations with Robin, at his offices beside
During the time Robin showed me a
Dialogue Poem he had written:
Dialogue
lives in the empty cracks
And
open spaces around us
Growing
in the silence of reflection
The
loosening of assumptions
The
shifting of mindsands
In
life's tidal flow
Unfolding
meaning
Awakening
being
Unlocking
new ways of seeing
On
the cusp
Life
lived at the edge
In
our peripheral visions
A
shared experience generating
Waves
of understanding
And
resonance in the flow
Together
engaged in a coherent field of light
We
act from an instant
Apprehension
of the totality
The
integral function on our fragmented world
Plexus
in the body politic
Weaving
a web of understanding
Shining
like an aura around us
The
cleansing brushfire in our brains
Expanding
our awareness into the sea of possibility
Dr
Robin L Wood, Genesys
The conversations with Robin were highly
enjoyable, and seemed to range far and wide through human evolution, the human
brain, complexity and the new sciences, jazz and improvisation, corporate life
from
The seminar called "Dialogue for
Change Agents" was positioned as a chance to explore what it takes to
deliver real, sustainable change, working at the frontiers of your leadership
and facilitation practice. It was attended by 9 or so participants, and was
successful in its own way but it felt inconclusive to me. We had completed some
interesting talks and exercises, and some members of the group wanted to meet
up again for a further session, and I was prepared to continue, but a number of
us including me felt we had not achieved the hoped for experience of dialogue.
I suppose this shows how illusive dialogue can be.
Making connections
from Senge, to Bohm and Isaacs
During my research leading up to the
"Dialogue for Change Agents" seminar I noticed in Peter Senge's book,
The Fifth Discipline, a reference to Werner Heisenberg, the physicist famous
for the uncertainty principle, who stated that "science is rooted in
conversations", and referred to certain conversations which had had a
lasting effect on his thinking and gave birth to the theories for which he
eventually became famous.
David Bohm is also referred to in Senge's
book as someone who was developing a theory and method of dialogue, through
which a group "becomes open to the flow of a larger intelligence".
Dialogue was said to be a method revered by the ancient Greeks and practised by
many primitive societies including Native Americans but lost to the modern
world.
From time
to time the tribe gathered in a circle. They just talked and talked apparently
to no purpose. They made no decisions. There was no leader. And everybody could
participate. There may have been wise men or wise women who were listened to a
bit more - the older ones- but everybody could talk. The meeting went on, until
finally seemed to stop for no reason at all and the group dispersed. Yet after
that, everybody seemed to know what to do, because they understood each other
so well. Then they could get together in smaller groups and do or decide
things.
David Bohm, On Dialogue
Bohm argued that the purpose of science
was not the "accumulation of knowledge" but the "creation of
mental maps" that guide our perception. Bohm argued that in contrast to
the ping-pong of conventional discussion, a group in dialogue experiences a
"free flow of meaning in the sense of a stream that passes between two
banks", and accesses "a pool of common meaning" which cannot be
accessed individually. The purpose of dialogue is to go beyond an individual's
understanding, and to achieve insights that simply could not be achieved
individually. A group is able to explore complex, difficult issues from many
points of view, suspending assumptions and communicating assumptions freely.
Amongst Peter Senge's clan at MIT is a
man called William Isaacs who has developed a special interest in Dialogue. I
notice that he was present amongst participants at the Cotswolds hotel on that
weekend with David Bohm in 1984/5 (reported in Bohm's book Unfolding Meaning).
He has worked in deeply conflicted situations, for example with steel workers
who were in an industrial dispute with their management, and in the
Jaworski and Shell
During 1997 I read a book by Joe Jaworski
called "Synchronicity - The Inner Path of Leadership". In this
inspirational book Jaworski, former head of group scenario planning in Shell,
describes a meeting he had with David Bohm in
Meeting Peter Garrett
(1998)
During 1998 I attended a seminar, called
Changing Ourselves, Changing Organisations at
I realised during the day that the
session leader, Peter Garrett, was the business partner of Bill Isaacs, of MIT
and a month or two later met up him in a restaurant in Stratford on Avon to try
to understand his piece in this Dialogue jigsaw.
It transpired that Peter knew David Bohm,
had worked with him for nine years and had organised the Cotswold Hotel weekend
reported in Bohm's book Unfolding Meaning! His involvement with David Bohm
began when he was organising a large conference on "Human Unity" at
Warwick University. Peter as organiser was able to ring up people of his choice
to be speakers. Today he might have phoned Nelson Mandela, but then he chose
Thor Heyerdahl and Llaurens Van Der Post. He also chose to approach David Bohm
as someone important in the world of physics and science, whose photo in the
brochure at the time could have helped enrol more people and reduce the risk of
making a loss.
In the end David Bohm replied too late to
get his picture in the brochure, so the publicity benefits were lost but he did
run an excellent 40 minute session on wholeness with the simple message that in
physics and in society at large there is a FRAGMENTATION of thought which
produces pain. 40 minutes was hardly long enough to do justice to this so huge
a topic so Peter booked the hotel in Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire and
arranged for 40 people to attend a weekend with David Bohm, and the rest is
history… They wrote a paper together called "Dialogue - a Proposal "
(http://www.cs.ubc.ca/nest/imager/contributions/scharein/various/Dialogue.html ). Peter explained it like this.
Bohm's fragmentation
idea and the role of dialogue in crossing boundaries
Fragmentation is a result of the way
people think, about ourselves and about each other. The way we think is tacit
not explicit – it is not the content of our thoughts. How do you think? We
don’t know. It is like asking How do you ride a bicycle. We don’t know how. But
fragmentation suggests we are not doing our thinking very well. Dialogue
exposes how we think and can overcome the fragmentation.
We have COLLECTIVE THOUGHT PATTERNS – but
individuals are not aware of them. This is like Jung's archetypes, but we are
referring to thinking within factions and subcultures within organisations.
People become part of factions without realising and without deliberately
joining. In factions we find ourselves similar to others inside and different
from others outside. It is through finding ourselves part of a group, tribe or
faction we VALIDATE OUR IDENTITY i.e. we confirm that we exist, that we're
significant and find out who we are through our contact with others. With a tangible
object we can see whether it exists or not, we can touch it, but it is not so
easy to see our own identity.
When we’re working with individuals on
difficult change issues, they might be intellectually and even emotionally
convinced of the need for change, but validation is also needed. They need
confirmation that they are thinking straight and that others are thinking along
similar lines. Validation is important for the way we think and act
subsequently. But factions apart from providing much needed validation, have a
downside: they often end up thinking unreasonable thoughts about
"outsiders", and this is the root of prejudice and racism.
The early dialogue work with David Bohm
involved working in groups that were large enough to be "messy",
larger than a single faction, to expose collective thought patterns. Peter
Garrett organised groups of 40-70 people in England, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway,
Denmark and elsewhere. These groups explored the idea of fragmentation and
sought to expose the way we think.
From these groups a lot of theoretical
stuff emerges. Quickly people found themselves stating "shoulds",
e.g. "I think we should do this, should not do that…", and they
started suggesting techniques such as NLP. Our reply would be "What is it
that makes you want to suggest NLP etc?" This led to some QUITE EXTREME
SITUATIONS, for example in Sweden on one occasion "there was much
discomfort, and the group inquired into the discomfort, which became quite
painful. A woman in her 50s left, found a piano, pushed it back into the room
on her own and started playing! If you inquire instead of providing solutions
it can be very challenging because it exposes our thinking".
Theory was developing from this work,
partly from David Bohm's previous work on "Wholeness and the Implicate
Order" (see book), which said that EVERYTHING IS INTERRELATED at an
unmanifest, hidden level. Manifest includes all the things we can see, touch,
but think of them as "ripples on the ocean": ripples are manifest,
but the ocean is the important part. Everything is deeply interrelated, there
are no independent actions. This is close to Native American ideas about humans
being part of nature. Think of spring coming: it is manifest as snow drops
appearing, but you do not stop spring by picking all the snowdrops! Old science
looked for cause and effect linkages between manifest items, and missed the
point of the underlying wholeness.
These ideas played themselves out in the
dialogue group. When the lady started playing the piano, it was not an
independent act, we were all party to it.
A second theoretical influence was Bohm's
conversations with Krishnamurti which extended over 20 years or more. (see book
– The Ending of Time). Krishnamurti did not find many people he could converse
with in this way so it was for him an unusual 2 way exchange. Peters says it
was a "passionate inquiry" style.
A third strand was from psychologist
Patrick De Mare (his book "Koinonia – from hatred through dialogue to
culture in the large group"), who was involved with therapeutic groups.
Peter Garrett's work after David
Bohm's death
Peter himself contributed greatly to the
early dialogue work with Bohm and others. He brought 15+ years of experience
with groups and communities. Most of the people surrounding David Bohm were
academics. Peter was interested in making a difference beyond theory, finding
practical meaning, and sought to keep theory and practice intimately related to
one another.
Peter was constantly asking "Does
this really work?", "Does it work with people who are not
academics?". This has led him to work in prisons, organisations and
participation in action research at Bath.
He finds a lot of organisational thinking
quite individualistic ("tune up your car and drive it at the
obstacles"). Some stuff is really quite deadly… "our competitors
should wake up and curse the day we were born!" = very fragmentary, evil
almost. The idea that competitors are not part of the same system is absurd,
and results in deep fragmentation. Just like certain prisoners, some senior
managers seem sociopathic: they take decisions without a proper social basis to
them. Negotiations tend to be one-sided, on the basis of advantage.
The Inclusive Approach advocated by
Tomorrow's Company raises the question of how wide you draw the circle. For
example, Peter is involved with an environmental movement called "The
Natural Step" which states four conditions for environmental sustainability
including "not to remove from the earth material at a faster rate than you
replenish". Monsanto are engaging with this, but they also have a huge
genetic initiative. The challenge is how large do you draw the circle, how to
you get the whole system involved, how do you engage with the chain of
relationships to bring about systemic change? Perhaps this is where Peter's
work in prisons is key.
Dialogue work in
prisons
Prisons are full of people who are
excluding others: prisoners exclude prison officers and vice versa, violent
prisoners exclude sex offenders, certain sex offenders (e.g. rapists) exclude
other types of sex offenders (e.g. child offenders). Peter recently ran a two
day session with 23 prisoners, 2 prison officers, the head of through care and
the governor in high security prison. He is currently running regular dialogue
sessions in two prisons. The sessions work on the principle of including
everyone and everything all the time. Whilst people do not always turn up, the
door is always open. He has never asked anyone to leave. They have had the best
and the worst of sessions as a result!
The drawing of the circle wide enough is
the way out of fragmentation. In the end Dialogue has to include the whole
system. Peter would like to begin to involve Prison Service HQ and the Home
Office in these sessions.
Peter realised you can only go a certain
distance with theory detached from practice, or you end up in cloud cuckoo
land. This can be a real problem. Holistic theory-making is a lot of the
problem – it ends up excluding other people. It is easy for writers to be
advocating but not experiencing what they’re writing. Academics who write in an
inaccessible language are playing some kind of fragmentary game.
Theory and practice should go hand in
hand – cycles of theory and practice are intertwined.
Dialogue in Shell
Through Dia-Logos, the company in which
Bill Isaacs and Peter Garrett are partners, they run a programme called
Leadership for Collective Intelligence. It is a 10 month long course on
Dialogue. People come in teams from their organisations. There is a week
residential every month. On the first programme was a team from Shell including
a person who was to consult to and mentor the leadership team in Shell's US
organisation. This team introduced a series of small skills and practice to
cultivate dialogue and eventually, over a period of time started to have agenda
free dialogues. The CEO's reaction was "When I first took over, we tried
to change the organisation and failed, nothing happened. When we started
working on ourselves things really started to happen." This also
contributed to a loosening of the whole identity of Shell. They are now
co-operating with many companies in a community, through which instead of a
single monolithic identity they are developing multiple identities. They are
forming joint ventures with people who were their most serious competitors.
They seem to realise there is not a single view but as many views as they have
people in the room.
How Peter came to this
work
Peter said he has sometimes wondered and
worked on the question of why, at this point in his life he is drawn to work in
maximum security prisons! He realises his earlier life experience might have
contributed.
Peter's early life fell into two parts:
Peter realises many people's lives are
either more like 1 or 2, either a deep sense of belonging to a natural ecology
or an engagement in thought, either more practical or more academic. The first
part includes being streetwise and Peter notices evidence of street wisdom in
prisons, with prisoners running rings round academics.
He remembers being in Rhodesia as a
child, swimming, a granite waterfall, cracking his head on a rock, being face
down in a pool of water, then saved by a friend. On another occasion he
remembers seriously burning his feet. The theme here is surviving traumatic
incidents during childhood. Later in life, on reflection Peter has noticed a
pattern in which he induces serious situations and seeks to survive, to remain
conscious under pressure, not becoming introvert or disappearing. His work in
prisons is a good example of the pattern: he wants to stay conscious, include
all the elements there, maintain engagement despite apparent threats to his
identity. His drive is towards including "what’s going on",
"what is", and "what should be" as part of "what
is", as being coherent, necessary, relevant, not rejecting and therefore
causing fragmentation.
Healing the rift
In a way Peter's early life was rifted,
not reconciled elsewhere, so Peter had to find a way to reconcile the rift in
himself, realised it was important to allow unreconciled parts of himself all
to be available, all elements to contribute to the health of the whole. He
realised this is generally not how management teams operate.
To me this sounds like principles of
individual therapy being just as relevant to groups, organisations and society.
The only way Peter knows of in a group to make all the parts available to
contribute to the health of the whole is through INQUIRY, into "what
is", not "what should be". This allows all elements to be
present, authentic and respected. This is important as an individual, for all
elements in your life to be included, as part of a journey = a "dialogic
way of being", both being as an individual and as a group.
Some people say they have a problem in a
meeting because they need to move into dialogic mode but can't. Peter says you
can be dialogic in any situation – you have to surface the inquiry people have.
Patrick De Mare said this. It is to do with how society is structured, rewarded
and held together. (See Images of Organisation by Gareth Morgan).
Society is structured by a civilising
process, which induces guilt and shame for breaking a tacitly agreed set of
social rules. This produces feelings of repugnance, being uncomfortable with
and disgusted by people who break the rules. Repugnance sustains the guilt and
shame. For example, spitting used to be commonplace 4 centuries ago…but
sometime perhaps a century ago it changed to something you don’t do in public
(with slightly different rules in France or China). Now it is still acceptable
if you miss a goal in football – then spitting signals repugnance, or shame and
reinforces somehow the rule.
There are tacit rules around eye contact.
In Prison for two hours per week people in dialogue groups have extensive eye
contact, which has a big impact: it is changing their social rules, freeing
them up.
The vote was the end
of true democracy….
Then we came to decision-making in
society. Decision has the same root as incision, decide, suicide, genocide,
meaning to cut or murder choices. For hundreds of thousands of years the human
population was organised in hunter-gatherer groups, 20-30 people, no hierarchy
except for different status of elder and younger members, no decisions. They
needed only to work two to three hours a day to sustain themselves. They did
their thinking by sitting round a fire together, or under the shade of baobab
trees in Rhodesia, they would talk for hours. Talking was the main means of
thinking. Today we look back to the hunter-gatherer's life as being harsh, but
we seem to need 40 hours per week or more to sustain ourselves and we seem to
have insufficient time to talk and think. Perhaps work takes longer when it is
forced.
Hunter-gathers talked in a way that
everyone knew their past. Through talking they developed a "common"
sense, not a decision-making procedure. If you wanted to go hunting, you told
stories about past hunts, about the animals you want to hunt, about what the
eating would be like – through this talking they were getting into the nature and
the spirit of the animal, and the relationship between the animal and them.
This produced respect for the animal. It was caused everyone to know what to
do: someone would gather wood for the fire etc. No one was directing.
"Common" sense is a different way
of structuring society. The last remnants of this in Europe were at The Thing,
a big rock marking an ancient gathering place in Iceland. Problems of scale of
society today mean that it is not an option to revert to this. But perhaps it
is still important for people to have a chance to say what they have to say, to
be heard by people who take decisions on their behalves…maybe to have a place
where this happens, like The Thing.
South African Peace and Truth Commission
was a modern day example of dealing with pain and trauma, using an ancient
principle: anyone can listen as people are called to tell their stories.
There are two very different approaches
to society:
A power differential is perhaps
inevitable today, and has to be taken into account, for example a governor in a
prison has power over prison officers and prisoners. It is a real challenge to
achieve respect across a power differential. Dialogue perhaps helps people with
less power to discover respect.
Introducing dialogue
in organisations
In organisations we can’t help but deal
with our whole society. Dialogue can seem quite subversive to the current
structures and cultures in organisations. " Yes this is hugely
counter-cultural and counter-societal and it needs not to be imposed.You have
to open a situation, keep it voluntary, let people determine the pace e.g. in
prisons it is voluntary, people go at their own speed, sometimes a person will
come for 10-12 weeks and never say a word, (whereas others are being assertive)
and I support them…I do break this rule if a person raises a subject say three
times without opening it up. Then I assume they want to talk about it and I
open it saying 'you mentioned your mother three times, what happened?'".
The civilising process with its tacitly
agreed rules will vary in each organisation. Dialogue happens as people move
from polite (adherence to rules), to impolite (breaking down the fixed rules),
behaving impolitely, analogous to spitting on the floor! Dialogue starts with
chaos and inquiry: you question why people are feeling, thinking, speaking and
behaving the way they are, such as "Why do you shout at me?",
"What is the thought or feeling that gives rise to this?".
People in authority positions, such as
prison governors, feel very responsible and they use control, but they’re not
nasty bad guys. If they lack confidence in using dialogue, they will push the
game back to where the rules were, from chaotic to polite.
What is needed in this chaos is a way of
inquiring that starts to make some deeper sense out of the chaos. So the
facilitator needs first to be facilitating a polite group to become impolite,
then when it is chaotic to inquire to see what all this is like, and that
starts a collective inquiry – no decisions are needed!
(I had no further contact with Peter
Garrett after for almost a year, but sent him a copy of this paper in draft and
we spoke on the telephone to clarify one or two points).
Concluding with Bill
Stockton and the Mobius Strip (1999)
This has turned out to be a pretty long
journey to understanding dialogue. Last month a course I attended at Oxford
Psychologists with Susan Brock on Excellence in Communication produced an
expected gem which I'll end on, for now at least. Susan lives near someone
called Bill Stockton who has produced a model of dialogue that he calls the
Mobius Model.
The name comes from a Mobius Strip. To
understand this imagine a strip of paper twisted in the middle then the two
ends joined. If you draw a pencil line along the strip you will discover it is
now a one sided, infinity loop. Bill uses this to illustrate his central point
that all the time each of us has two conversations going on: one inside us, and
one on the outside. The greater the gap or a difference between the inside and
the outside one, then the more disengaged we are from the situation around us.
Dialogue is when there is both conversations are in sync, congruent, and as a
result we are fully present and engaged in the situation around us.
Bill describe two main out of sync
conversations, the first of which is being stuck in blaming others about the
past, involving anger, frustration and leading to feelings that "we are
different than them", ultimately to entrenched "them and us"
position-taking. The other out of sync conversation is worrying about the
future, involving fear, avoidance and a sense of helplessness.
He shows how to develop a conversation
that leads to congruence and committed action as a result. He offers series of
stages into a conversation that creates committed action:
This seems to be a practical tool to
assist in having the conversation that crosses boundaries.
Interim conclusions
about dialogue
This inquiry has been fascinating for me,
and I hope of some value to the reader (if any have made it this far!). Of
course this is still incomplete. I wanted for example to link this to Maslow's
work on self-actualisation, to Mihalyi Czik's work on the experience of
happiness and flow, and to go more deeply into the way a group can
spontaneously self-organise without the force of leadership.
My experience through recent consulting
work in banks and central government is that listening for mutual understanding
is absolutely the first step, and the deeper the differences, the higher the
stakes, then the more time needs to be spent at this trust building stage.
Clearly Dialogue is neither as simple nor
as all powerful as we might like it to be, or there would not be wars and
disputes. The impact of dialogue is based more upon the intention and honesty
of the people present that on any specific technique. I do feel that as the
context for survival in our organisations is shifting and we are re-examining
key relationships, what is called for is a way of deepening the key stakeholder
relationships to be generative, co-creative, shared destiny and win-win.
Dialogue contains some important pointers.
Tony Page
August 1999
__________________________________________________________