**6.2 Structure**

The *platform for dialogue*, i.e. the expression used by the CSSP in our case study in order to explain the goal of the dialogue, was established in three phases (three seminars) of which we will focus on the first and initial phase, i.e. the opening seminar. **Table 2** below shows that this seminar was organized as a dialogue consisting of three turn-takings: an initiative, a reaction and an evaluation/closing. We see that the specific rules for turn taking were observed insofar as the initiative is followed by a response (the notion of adjacency pair). The construction is so to say held together by the expectation of a response. The positive evaluation of the response indicates that the response is a so-called preferred response. Thus, the partnership can close the dialogue and proceed to the next phase in the CSSP.


*other stakeholders.*

#### **Table 2.**

*Developing the project in a dialogical process.*

*How to Do CSR with Dialogic Meeting Talk: A Conceptual Framework for Managing Change… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94345*

#### **6.3 Process**

All major representatives from the partners in the CSSP were involved in the dialogue. Before the opening seminar, the so-called steering group had met several times to negotiate the contract and prepare the partnership-wide dialogue. At the opening seminar, the steering group with the public partner in front presented the context, in particular the pressure from government who had asked private companies to take a social responsibility and the decision made by top management in the private company to take affirmative action. In particular, there was a need to explain to the employees in the private company and the other stakeholders why the partnership with the public sector was necessary or beneficial. In this way, the primary role of the public partner at the seminar was to legitimize the project and the contract made with the private company (authoritative power). The employees at middle management level in the private company and other stakeholders (e.g. unions and NGOs) were asked to discuss the whole idea and identify potential strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. This was their contribution to the dialogue/process. The steering group reflected upon/evaluated the contributions from the employees and others and closed the partnership-wide seminar by outlining future work. In this way, the dialogical structure (initiative, reaction, evaluation/closing) supported the purpose of the dialogue, i.e. establishment of common understanding. This common understanding was necessary in order to proceed with the implementation of the project. The dialogue used in implementing the strategy was more closed than the one used in developing the strategy. The employees were for example not invited to give feedback (managerial power). The communication was rather two-way and asymmetrical relative to the two-way and symmetrical communication of the development phase. This is natural when it comes to the communication of decisions. According to James E. Grunig, the situation and the purpose determine which communication form is best [58–60].

Summing-up, our analysis has illustrated contextual, structural and processoriented parameters that are relevant to analyzing and understanding partnershipwide meetings as a change management tool. Importantly, it has illuminated the interplay between these parameters. We find that partnership-wide meetings in CSSPs for systemic change can be analyzed and organized on much the same terms as interpersonal and intergroup dialogues, which we believe can inspire us to rethink social change as a dialogue, i.e. dialogue as both a formal structure and a discursive practice where issues of language, power and ideology are involved.
