Abstract
This article claims that Bohm's dialogue could best serve individuals, organizations, and society if it is not assimilated into merely being a tool used in organizational development. After presenting first Bohm's dialogue and second Argyris's action science, similarities and differences between these two approaches are outlined. It is demonstrated that fundamental points distinguish these approaches, such as their purposes and the faculties they attempt to develop in the human being. In the last section, considering the dead end toward which our society and humanity are heading, it is suggested that Bohm's dialogue, when freed from its utilitarian yoke, could be a way to accede to Learning III, a necessity for our organizations, our society, and ourselves.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
