Web Lecture 3

Democracy & Dialogue

Discusses: five models of democracy (procedural, competitive, participatory, cooperative, dialogic), mindful dialogue, authentic dialogue.

Introduction

In Chapter 2, the authors of your text discuss the importance of dialogue in organization and suggest thatmindful dialogue is a central component in effective organizational communication practices. In Chapter 7, the authors introduce the idea of workplace democracy and its many paradoxes, tensions, or dialectics. In this web lecture, I more clearly weave together democracy and dialogue in organization.

Foundations of Democracy

Democracy inhabits a key place in American culture and provides the foundation for the structure of our government. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, led to renewed discussion in the U.S. and other countries of democratic values.

The word democracy traces its roots back to the Greek term demokratia, a combination of demos, or common people, and kratia, meaning strength, power, and rule (Harper, 2001). So at its core, democracy refers to people having the power or strength to rule themselves. Sounds pretty basic. But as individuals put democracy into practice, implementation becomes complex. For example, how do people rule themselves? Is there just one way to achieve democracy? What are the characteristics of democracy? How does democracy work in organizations? Examining different models of democracy, summarized in the table below, helps answer these questions.

Summary of Democracy Models

Models of Democracy

Procedural democracy focuses on the foundations of democracy—voting, a free press, free speech, and freedom of assembly. This type of democracy emphasizes the procedures, rules, and requirements that must be in place for democracy to exist (Strömbäck, 2005). The early days of the United States represented a procedural democracy, with the U.S. Constitution detailing the guidelines for forming a democratic nation. As the leaders of Iraq developed their country's constitution, they formed the basis for a procedural democracy. In providing the foundation for democracy, such procedures guide individuals, institutions, and governments in how to function democratically. However, if rules prove inflexible or unworkable, they may interfere with democracy's development.

Once a democratic group starts the election process, it becomes a competitive democracy. Individuals compete for various positions in government that serve the interests of the larger group. You've probably voted in school elections to choose officers for student government, as well as local, state, and national elections to pick the candidates who best represent your needs and concerns. Competitive or adversary democracy rests on the principles of one person/one vote and majority rule (Mansbridge, 1983). This model also assumes that groups or constituents have conflicting interests, so there's competition to win the most votes. Because of the emphasis on appealing to the majority, minority concerns may be ignored.

In addition to electing individuals into office in a competitive democracy, voters also elect people out of office. Consider former California Governor Gray Davis. Originally elected to the position in 1999, he was re-elected in 2002. Then came the state¹s budget crisis later that year, and in October 2003 California voters booted him out of office in an historic recall vote. Six weeks later, voters elected actor Arnold Schwarzenegger California's 38th governor.

Participatory democracy requires that people do more than vote—they must actively engage in cooperative activities that will help the group achieve its goals. Individuals must become knowledgeable about relevant issues, consider others¹ opinions and ideas, and articulate their own views. Participating in democratic processes, such as discussing key societal problems, helps individuals feel a part of the final outcome or decision even if they disagree with it (Polletta, 2002). Perhaps most important, when people participate in their own governance, they find out how democracy works. For example, college students who engaged in democratic decision making on controversial topics, such as campus security, learned important lessons about compromise, self-expression, and influence. The students also came to realize democracy moves at its own pace, often slow, disorganized, and chaotic (McMillan, 2004). Although participatory democracy encourages egalitarian discussions, power is seldom distributed equally among all communicators. In addition, not all participants enjoy full access to the information they need to present their viewpoints.

The deliberative democracy model goes beyond participatory democracy to call for a specific kind of participation—reasoned, impartial discussion among all participants with an equal opportunity to present and listen to arguments relevant to the topic. Excellent deliberation involves thorough analysis of the problem, careful listening, thoughtful comments, and openness to differing perspectives and ideas (West & Gastill, 2004). No one dominates the discussion, although participants expect—even encourage—respectful disagreement. And changing your position is okay. That's why good listening skills are so important—you might hear something that leads you to reassess your views. Ideally, juries apply deliberative democracy when deciding the outcome of a case. Jury members review all the facts, consider the different interpretations of the evidence, and articulate arguments consistent with their individual viewpoints. Working together, the group agrees on a verdict they all support.

But is democracy just about rational discussion and reasoned arguments? What about emotion and passion? Answering those questions leads to dialogic democracy, a form of democracy emphasizing inquiry, participation, and dialogue in decision making (Powley, Fry, Barrett, & Bright, 2004). The first two elements of dialogic democracy—inquiry and participation—parallel deliberative democracy. Dialogic democracy, however, goes beyond deliberative democracy to incorporate the passionate and personal perspectives individuals bring to any discussion. Dialogue involves inviting all participants to express their viewpoints while at the same time retaining an openness to other perspectives (Arnett, 2001). When you engage in dialogue with others, you share a genuine commitment to understand what others think and feel. You listen to logical and emotional arguments. You value each person's experience as a unique human being. Mindful dialogue goes beyond an individual commitment to dialogue to embrace the notion of "thinking together" in innovative and creative ways.

Dialogic Democracy and Organization

Dialogic democracy is well-suited to organizations because dialogue requires collaboration—participants must work together to create meaningful communication. Communicators depend on each other to clearly articulate their thoughts and actively listen to what others have to say. In addition, dialogue means that organization members learn together, encouraging a cooperative approach to problem solving and decision making (Hammond, Anderson, & Cissna, 2003).

You might think that dialogic democracy leads to a communication free-for-all, with everyone saying whatever comes to mind. But as the authors of your text discuss in Chapter 2, dialogue requires a balance between expressing yourself and understanding the perspectives that others bring to an issue. You want to be passionate about both—your own take on the subject and others' interpretations.

A dialogic approach to democracy also focuses attention on the interaction among participants (Barker-Plummer, 1999). In dialogic democracy, communication provides the means for achieving democracy in organizations. Dialogic democracy encourages organization members to examine and reflect on how their interactions promote or hinder the open exchange of ideas. Dialogic democracy fits well with Eisenberg et al.'s notion of dialogue as real meeting, where "a genuine communion can take place between people that transcends differences in role or perspective and that recognizes all parties' common humanity" (p. 50).

Dialogic democracy's strengths—inquiry, participation and collaboration—can also lead to its weaknesses. Careful, thorough, and systematic inquiry takes time. Particularly in our fast-paced world, setting aside the time necessary to do the research essential to informed discussion can prove challenging. Dialogue's emphasis on self-expression can lead participants to focus too much what they have to say and not enough on listening to others. Finally, collaboration requires a tremendous commitment to consider a wide variety of perspectives and solutions to a problem. This can prove especially difficult in heterogeneous groups. For example, the crafters of the U.S. constitution—the worlds oldest—shared a similar background and drafted a document over the course of summer. In contrast, those who wrote Iraq's new constitution spoke different languages, dressed in dramatically different ways, and represented different religions (Williamson, 2005). The group managed to produce a constitution in a similar time frame, but not without sharp—and public—conflicts and difficulties.

Conclusion

The events of 9/11, the war in Iraq, and other social and political changes directed greater attention to democratic ways of organizing. Dialogic democracy provides an especially useful basis for small group functioning with an emphasis on collaborative inquiry, active participation, and dialogue. A passion for dialogue requires a commitment to self-expression and thoughtful listening to others' perspectives.

References

Arnett, R. C. (2001). Dialogic civility as pragmatic ethical praxis: An interpersonal metaphor for the public domain.Communication Theory, 11, 315-338.

Barker-Plummer, B. (1999). News as a feminist resource? A case study of media strategies and media representation of the National Organization for Women, 1966-1980. In A. Sreberny & L. van Zoonen (Eds.),Gender, politics, and communication (pp. 121-159). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Hammond, S. C., Anderson, R., & Cissna, K. N. (2003). The problematics of dialogue and power. In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook 27 (pp. 125-157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mansbridge, J. J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago: U of Chicago Press.

McMillan, J. J. (2004). The potential for civic learning in higher education: "Teaching democracy by being democratic." Southern Communication Journal, 69, 188-205.

Polletta, F. (2002). Freedom is an endless meeting: Democracy in American social movements. Chicago: U of Chicago Press.

Powley, E. H., Fry, R. E., Barrett, F. J., & Bright, D. S. (2004). Dialogic democracy meets command and control: Transformation through the Appreciative Inquiry Summit. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 67-80.

Strömbäck, J. (2005). In search of a standard: Four models of democracy and their normative implications for journalism. Journalism Studies, 6, 331-345.

West, M., & Gastil, J. (2004). Deliberation at the margins: Participant accounts of face-to-face public deliberation at the 1999-2000 World Trade protests in Seattle and Prague. Qualitative Research Reports, 5, 1-7.

Williamson, B. (2005, August 5). Purpose, promise of a constitution. Wisconsin State Journal, p. A6.