Modern Management Science focuses primarily on the human side of organizations. The humanistic view points out that management involves getting things done with and through people. Therefore the study of management should be based on interpersonal relations. However the human relations scientists neglected the behaviour pattern of groups. This led to the development of organisational behaviour, which involves the study of attitudes, behaviour and performance of individuals and groups in organizational setting. We have analysed in detail Group process and Group Dynamics in a separate project. We have studied therein about Workgroups and Team Development and synergistic effect on performance results that a work team can provide.

It is appropriately believed that individuals who have some control over how their work is done will be more satisfied and perform better. This is called empowerment in Organization Development. Put these empowered individuals together into teams and the results will be extraordinary (combining 'knowledge pool' and 'team synergy' together). French and Bell put it this way:

A fundamental belief in organization development is that work teams are the building blocks of organizations. A second fundamental belief is that teams must manage their culture, processes, systems, and relationships, if they are to be effective. Theory, research, and practice attest to the central role teams play in organizational success. Teams and teamwork are part of the foundation of organization development. (French and Bell, 1995, p. 87)

Peter Senge considers the team to be a key learning unit in the organization. According to Senge, the definition of team learning is:

...the process of aligning and developing the capacity of a team to create the results its members truly desire. It builds on the discipline of developing shared vision. It also builds on personal mastery, for talented teams are made up of talented individuals. (1990, p. 236)

Team learning is viewed as 'the process of aligning and developing the capacities of a team to create the results its members truly desire' (Senge 1990: 236). It builds on personal mastery and shared vision - but these are not enough. People need to be able to act together. When teams learn together, Peter Senge suggests, not only can there be good results for the organization, members will grow more rapidly than could have occurred otherwise.

The discipline of team learning starts with "dialogue," the capacity of members of a team to suspend assumptions and enter into a genuine "thinking together."

The discipline of dialogue also involves learning how to recognize the patterns of interaction in teams that undermine learning. The patterns of defensiveness are often deeply engrained in how a team operates. If unrecognized, they undermine learning. If recognized and surfaced creatively, they can actually accelerate learning.

The discipline of team learning involves mastering the practices of dialogue and discussion, the two distinct ways that teams converse. In dialogue, there is the free and creative exploration of complex and subtle issues, a deep "listening" to one another and suspending of one's own views. By contrast, in discussion different views are presented and defended and there is a search for the best view to support decisions that must be made at this time. Dialogue and discussion are potentially complementary, but most teams lack ability to distinguish between the two and to move consciously between them.

The notion of dialogue that flows through The Fifth Discipline is very heavily dependent on the work of the physicist, David Bohm (where a group 'becomes open to the flow of a larger intelligence', and thought is approached largely as collective phenomenon). When dialogue is joined with systems thinking, Senge argues, there is the possibility of creating a language more suited for dealing with complexity, and of focusing on deep-seated structural issues and forces rather than being diverted by questions of personality and leadership style. Indeed, such is the emphasis on dialogue in his work that it could almost be put alongside systems thinking as a central feature of his approach.

Brown expressed her belief in the importance of dialogue as follows:

"Strategic dialogue is built on the operating principle that the stakeholders in any system already have within them the wisdom and creativity to confront even the most difficult challenges." The 'community of inquiry' can extend beyond employees to include unions, customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders, becoming a "dynamic and reinforcing process which helps create and strengthen the 'communities of commitment' which Fred Kofman and Peter Senge emphasize lie at the heart of learning organizations capable of leading the way towards a sustainable future." (Bennet and Brown, 1995, p. 167)

David Bohm's necessary conditions for dialogue are as follows:

1. all participants must "suspend" their assumptions, literally to hold them "as suspended before us";

2. all participants must regard one another as colleagues;

3. there must be a "facilitator" who "holds the context" of dialogue.