在「學習共同體」中看見對話的神奇力量

---

今年是第15屆IAF亞洲年會。出席IAF的年會，就像是要去參加好朋友們的聚會，也像是要去「取經」一般，不知道這一路上會遇到甚麼令人驚喜的事情，或是會跟這些來自四面八方的與會者激盪出甚麼樣的學習火花，唯一知道的它將會是一段難忘的豐富對話之旅。

這次的大會主題是Building Organizations, Building Society。一共有16個主題在四個時段中分享，加上三場會前工作坊，以及IAF年會慣例舉行的「物以類聚」以及「方法分享」活動穿插，製造許多參加者之間對話與交流的機會，也串連彼此更多的共同學習經驗。我們很榮幸有機會擔任其中一個主題的發表者，把我們在台灣有關「對話工作坊」的實務應用，經過精心設計與包裝後與大會的參與者分享。與平常的工作坊不同的是，這些人部分是相當資深的引導師，或者是顧問、變革專家，我們看到他們的開放及積極參與的態度，讓整個分享過程進行相當順暢，也讓整個學習分享更為豐富。

或許是因為大會主題的關係，我們發現許多發表人不約而同的將「對話」的元素透過不同的方式引導討論，一方面加深了主題的認識，另一方面也讓「對話」在變革過程中扮演的重要角色有了更完整的呈現與詮釋。在建構一個組織或者是進行組織變革的過程中，「對話」絕對是一個重要的催化劑。

在我們分別參加的主題討論，我們體驗到不同層次的對話品質。William Issacs在《深度匯談~團隊共同思考的藝術》提到對話的演進有四個層次。一開始是禮貌性的交談， 從表面的和諧 、禮貌性談話，進入各自陳述主張、辯論、 甚至衝突的狀態。如果團體能夠放下既定的假設與判斷，同理聆聽，彼此探詢與反思，則對話有可能進入省思性的深度匯談，更甚至演進至創造性的深度匯談。對話者因此而成為一個真正的學習社群。對話的演進與Scott Peck所談的建立社群(Community Building)的四個階段有相輔相成之處—假象社群(Psuedocommunity)→混亂之群(Chaos)→淨空狀態(Emptiness)→真誠的社群(Authentic Community)。

前一陣子親子天下邀請日本教育大師，東京大學教授佐藤學來台，他所推動的「學習共同體」不禁也讓我們聯想到年會這樣的一個場合也算是一個學習共同體。在這樣的活動中，或許時間很短暫，每個人在引導專業方面程度也不一，大會的共通語言是英語，甚至有些人還有語言上的障礙；但是透過探詢，保持對人、事的好奇心，同時也能夠具備同理心，包容每個人在語言、文化上的差異性，對話即可以開啟交流與學習的契機。在這次的年會我們發現不管透過甚麼樣的方法或形式對話，參與者如何準備好自己，全心全意投身對話的場域裡，是需要持續學習與鍛鍊的功夫。這對我們一個身為「對話」的引導者來說，著實是一個很深刻的觀察與體會的經驗。

---

Seeing the Magic of Dialogue in a Learning Community

---

2012 is the International Association of Facilitators’ (IAF) 15^th annual Asia Conference; at this gathering of friends, you never know what surprises you’ll meet along the way, what sparks will be struck during interactions with participants from across the globe, yet you do know this will be an unforgettable journey of rich dialogue.

 “Building Organizations, Building Society” was the conference theme, developed through sixteen topics across four time periods of sharing, three pre-conference workshops, and IAF annual “Birds of Feather” and “Share a Method” sessions. All in all created abundant opportunities for dialogue and exchanges among participants for connecting around shared learning experiences. We were honored to host one of the topics and shared our experiences of conducting “dialogue workshops” across Taiwan.  The participants were experienced facilitators, consultants, and change management professionals; they brought an attitude of openness and active participation which enabled the sharing process to be smooth and abundant learning.

We discovered that many conference speakers were using dialogic elements to facilitate discussions, creating deeper understanding and comprehensive presentation and interpretation of the topic.  From this experience we felt affirmed that dialogue is critical catalyst for organizational structure and change.

Individually we each participated in different discussions and experienced different levels of dialogue qualities.  In the book “Dialogue: the Art of thinking together”, the author William Isaacs describes four stages of evolution in dialogue.  At the first stage there is polite conversation and superficial harmony. At the second stage individuals advocate their own opinions creating debate and even conflict within the organization.  If the individuals can put down their established assumptions and judgments then empathic listening, mutual inquiry and reflection will move the group towards at the third stage- reflective dialogue, and finally at the fourth stage the group engages in generative dialogue and can become a learning community.  The four stages of dialogue are complementary with Scott Peck’s four stages of community building: pseudo-community, chaos, emptiness and authentic community. 

At the IAF’s conference, even thought the time was short, and everyone’s professional level of facilitation was different, and with the common language being English some people had a language barrier; but through inquiry, being with the right people, curious, empathetic, inclusive of the different languages, and cultures, dialogue was able to support relationship building and learning.  At this conference, we realized that regardless process or form of dialogue, if participants intend to have a wholehearted dialogue then continuous learning and practicing are required. This was a profound observation and experience for us as dialogue practitioners.