Dialogue Initiation of Leadership in the Modern Business Organization (Dissertation Sample)

Dialogue initiation of leadership in the modern business organization
Name
Institution
Dialogue initiation of leadership in the modern business organization
Dialogue in organizations
The role of dialogue in society depicts the way we talk to each other that makes a lot of differences. There is no single best way of talking or dialog in the organization. Football organizations demand the coach to shout the instructions to players in an attempt of dialoguing. In aircraft organization, there is an employment of the use of code when the controllers speak to the pilots (Anderson, Ford & Hamilton, 2008). The dialogue in organizations helps in increasing mutual understanding and reduction of stereotyping. Discussion makes the seemingly intractable opposed people in the organizations change their way of viewing and relating to other people without losing their commitments that underline their opinion. Organizational dialogue explores concerns and shared values which are likely to result from collaborating actions that were initially unthinkable (Meissner, 2006). Participants of discussion try their best in talking in a manner that serves the purposes of values, communicating their views and experience without necessarily having to attack their rivals personally or throw trash at opponents. The dialogue in organizations is talking about the underlying values and experience in their ways by asking real questions or issues affecting them in the groups while avoiding unnecessary interactions (Brown, 2011). People need a lot of listening hence the need for dialogue in various organizations, although dialogue is less understood by many than the desire use activism and debate.
Countries like the United States show the use of history and civics in the presentation of political activism and discussion as special time tools in both rightly and the toolbox of democracy. Such form of instruments saw the end of segregation and slavery paving the way for giving out votes to African American and women and put a stop to the Vietnam war sooner than later. Dialogue plays a vital role in a civil and resilient democratic society. Several organizations employ the use of dialogue in building bridges across political divides by promoting healing in various areas that struggle with controversy (Anthony, 2010). Organizations employ the use of dialogue in reducing the likelihood of gridlock in the Congress halls, potential and dangerous misinterpretations, a lot of hatred in the field of public opinion also in the sound bite saturated media (Singe, 2010). Unbalancing by the satisfactory dialogue results in the positive impact of activism and debate diminishing in the recent decades as national rhetoric becomes damaged with the polarization of demonizing stereotypes and assertions. The particular information results in a majority of people becoming selectively ignorant and continues with the increase inability to appreciate their extent of ignorance. Other organizations like polarized political and social climate, meaningful use of dialogue rarely happens without the need for consideration of planning and thoughts (Daft, 2011). The dialogue in organizations can sometimes be seen to be an example of heart to heart talk or conversations between two parties or people who want their relationship to survive the ups and downs of a major agreement since they care so much about their union.
Some organizations think almost any exchange of different views or ideas in a form of dialogue. Groups use dialogue in attracting an audience to some events that are likely to involve a debate among various experts. The discussions are likely to be followed by a session of some questions and answers about the audience (Dale, 2007). Organizational dialogue is a helpful tool for conversation of people having different perspectives and beliefs seeking to develop some form of mutual understanding. The dialogue helps in the developing of more trusting links and experience of a softening of stereotypes. The use of dialogue in organizations helps in gaining fresh perspectives in seeing the sense of conflict costs and beginning to see newer possibilities for both actions and interactions outside of the dialogue rooms. The organization exchange allows for the agreement of participants in a more explicit way of setting aside the unnecessary arguments that enable one to focus on mutual understanding (Singe, 2010). The dialogue in organizations is very different from conflict resolution, mediation, and solving a problem but sometimes it can serve as a prelude or simply aspect of the processes.
Members of stakeholders or the activists are likely to end up spending a lot of energy pursuing their clear objective and little power in managing an exhausting and frustrating battle with opposing factions (Brown, 2011). The organization may have a feeling of their advocacy being largely both inefficient and having nothing to lose in the process of trying some new approaches to the communication with the people participating in the conflict. The process may reveal that current links or relationships characterize the feeling of victimizations and mutual mistrust that leads to deterioration and violence or deeper divisions (Whyte, 2006). Organizational dialogue helps in the fighting off the fear of loss of some significant opportunities that are likely to occur without the development of ways of working together. Lack of proper dialogue is also likely to bring about divisions within different setups like in places of worship, town, or even the workplaces. Whether or not the conflict comes in cold silence, heated arguments, or a combination of both the cold silence and the heated discussion, the people may experience some sense of loss. The losses may manifest in the form of authenticity that result in the false camaraderie covering of feeling of either estrangement or distrust. The loss is also likely to get information about commitment and energy leading to departure or apathy of some members of the group.
Insufficient dialogue of organizations can present a collective loss of ability in trying to deal with pressing issues efficiently. The losses can be of pride or sense of belonging in attempting to be part of both loving and safe community (Daft, 2011). The situation always makes people want regaining of some feelings in connection and supporting their particular commodity and not just the section of those who agree with the group. The scenario may make them want to feel safe enough in expressing their confusion or ambivalence that makes them want to live in a productive organization. The dialogue in groups, various debates, is not about controversial issues. The discussions include rancorous, as most people participate in dialogue with groups simply because of their strong feeling of alienation by both the tactics and slogans of leaders on both sides of the group even in cases where they are more supportive of one of the sides than the other side. The situation demands people to talk about their views in a line with feelings of textures, authentic, constructive and informed (Dale, 2007). There may be some wishes by the people of transcending the stereotyping that both sides promote and the gaining of deeper understanding with different thoughts.
Effects of technology on dialogue
Organizations implement new forms of technology at an alarming rate in trying to deal with talk. There is an assessment in an attempt to contribute information technology in improving effectiveness in efficiency and processes concerning decision making. Technology affects dialogue both in positive and negative ways in organizations. The use of technology can either detract or enhance dialogue in various forms of organizations (Brown, 2011). It is evident that morals discussion is helpful in encouraging moral action and expanding moral awareness. Dialogue have different aspects Technology from other forms of conversations and group therapy that involve personal growth as their primary role. Organizational dialogue concurs with little planning or structures among persons whose bonds are stronger their differences among the absolute strangers with an interest in the views of each other and also with the persons having problems that are neither long-standing nor intense. There is an adoption of new forms of technology like the groupware, web pages and emails in trying to enhance the dialogue in organizations (Dale, 2007). The relationships characterized by animosity, polarization, stereotyping, distrust cannot be comfortable in an efficient pursue of discussion and goals. Dialogue results in the careful collaboration of technological planning and in ensuring clarity concerning the organization use of dialogue and its fostering alignment between participants and the objective of the dialogue wishes.
The use of technology in dialoguing in organizations solve the issues of communications and also help in discouraging cheap ways of encouraging genuine inquiry and talking about the problems. Organization meetings demands for the designs that include support structures for speaking, reflection and listening questions that begs for the invitation for new ways of talking and thinking about the issues (Whyte, 2006). The dialogue of organizations requires the facilitations in the particular information of both responsive and preparation in ensuring the merging interests and of the participants. Relationship discussions make people in drawing a variety of reasons in variation with their relationships the situation and the issue or problems. The use of technology facilitates dialogue in making the sharing of meaningful information freely without having the urge of imposing one person's views concerning others and without self-deception and distortion of the information. The current technology brings about the profoundly new techniques in using dialogue in different organizations....