Managers Develop Moral Accountability: The Impact of Socratic Dialogue

Bring Back Philosophy: The Roots of Both Business and Ethics

“…Perhaps managers would not get much done if they started thinking instead of acting: ‘to be philosophical when we should be ‘efficient’ or practical would be self-destructive’ (Segal, 2005, p. 10). Additionally, engaging with philosophy is rather difficult, unpleasant and leaves people feeling confused (Bolten, 2001). It can even seem as though management and philosophy have contradictory objectives: ‘the raison d’être of management is performance while philosophy pursues the truth’ (Ledoux, 2012, p. 17).…”

“…Others yet propose Levinassian approaches to teaching business ethics (Trezise & Biesta, 2009). Most commonly, however, professors and academics endorse the Socratic Dialogue Method as a greatly beneficial ‘philosophizing’ tool for business ethics (Bolten, 2001; Morrell, 2004).…”

Reflective decisions: the use of Socratic dialogue in managing organizational change

“…If we look more closely at the structure of the Socratic dialogue, we will find that it is somewhat more complex than an inverted traditional syllogism. Bolten (2001) outlines the following rules in managing Socratic dialogue:…”

“…If we look more closely at the structure of the Socratic dialogue, we will find that it is somewhat more complex than an inverted traditional syllogism. Bolten (2001) outlines the following rules in managing Socratic dialogue:a well formulated, general question, or a statement, is set by the facilitator (sometimes in consultation with participants) before the discourse commences;the first step is to collect concrete examples experienced by participants in which the given topic plays a key role;the group chooses one example, which will usually be the basis of the analysis and argumentation throughout the dialogue; andcrucial statements made by participants are written down on a flip chart or board, so that all can have an overview and be clear about the sequence of the discourse.It is permissible at any time within the dialogue for the facilitator or any participant to call a kind of “time out” in order to direct the attention of the group to any problems that may have arisen. For example, it may be that a participant has lost track of the discussion, is unable to understand what others are saying, or feels excluded, one or more participants may have become upset with the way the dialogue has developed, the group may have lost its way and need to review the structure or content of the dialogue, or the group may want to discuss the strategies it is using to seek a consensus on the question.…”

Wzajemność i międzypodmiotowy dialog w edukacji religijnej

“…It requires the participation of a facilitator trained in rhetoric and argumentation, and the goal is to arrive at consensus about a speci c issue or problem among a small group. 47 Martin Buber 48 explained the perils of the "I and it" relationship shortly after Freud's major works were published, but it did not deter the hegemony of Freud's followers until recent years. Buber 49 found "[…] communicative openness is maximized in situations which have certain structural attributes.…”