The Radical Limits of Prescriptive Approaches

There is a certain comfort in a playbook: step one, step two, step three—a promise of order in a world that feels increasingly chaotic. In the workplace, in organizations, and even in our personal lives, we often reach for guides and checklists in the hope they will deliver us from conflict or confusion into clarity and connection. 

What if the very structure of the playbook is the problem?

The Seduction—and Failure—of the Linear
Many traditional approaches to personal and organizational conflict and transformation are obsessed with the prescriptive: “Do this, then that, and you’ll get the result you want.”

These methods can be helpful for addressing surface-level issues, but they rarely address the underlying causes. In fact, they often reinforce the very boundaries—emotional, relational, and systemic—that keep us isolated and reactive (Levey, 2024; Pipere & Lorenzi, 2021).

This is not a theoretical critique. In my own research and experience, I have seen how these approaches can leave us feeling more alone, more entrenched, and less able to respond creatively to the complexity of real life. The proverbial playbook, for all its promises, is a map that refuses to acknowledge the terrain has changed (Levey, 2024).

Embodiment: The Missing Radical Act
What is missing from the ‘playbook’ is embodiment. Embodiment is not just “being present” or “mindfulness” as a buzzword. It is the radical act of bringing the whole self—body, emotion, history, and relationship—into the process of transformation.

As I argue in my dissertation, this is a move away from the linear, heroic, individualistic journey toward a more spacious, relational, and collective way of being (Levey, 2024; Dall’Alba & Barnacle, 2007).

Embodiment means that transformation is not something that happens “out there,” or in the abstract, but in the lived, felt experience of our bodies and our relationships. It is a process that is messy, nonlinear, and often uncomfortable. It is also, crucially, a process that cannot be scripted in advance (Levey, 2024; Franklin-Phipps, 2020).

Dialogue as Embodied Practice: Making Space Real
This is where dialogue comes in—not as mere communication, but as an embodied act. Communication, in its most common form, is transactional: information is exchanged, positions are stated, and the goal is often persuasion or agreement.

Dialogue, by contrast, is a practice of presence. It is a way of being-with, of inhabiting the space between self and other, of listening with the whole body and allowing oneself to be changed by the encounter (Levey, 2024, pp. 116-117; Bakhtin, 1986).

In the EcoDialogues framework, which draws from Indigenous, Eastern, and transdisciplinary wisdom, dialogue is not a tool for consensus or conflict resolution. It is a method for inhabiting space together, for witnessing and being witnessed, for allowing the boundaries between us to become more porous. Dialogue is not about winning or losing, but about opening—a process that is as much somatic as it is semantic (EcoDialogues, 2024; Pipere & Lorenzi, 2021).

This is a crucial distinction. Communication can happen without embodiment; dialogue cannot. Dialogue, in its truest sense, is an embodied act of resistance against the inherited norms and power structures that keep us apart. It is a way of creating new spaces—through vulnerability, collective care, and shared movement—where authentic connection and transformation can flourish (Levey, 2024, pp. 116-117; Moore, 2018).

Spaciology—my framework for transformation—makes this explicit: space is not just a metaphor, but a lived, relational field. Dialogue is what makes space real. Without dialogue, “space” remains an abstraction. With dialogue, it becomes a living, breathing context for change (Levey, 2024, pp. 142-150; EcoDialogues, 2024).

Dialogue, Belief, and Organizational Culture
These potential new spaces are not just metaphorical, as they refer to the changing of beliefs and assumptions, which translates directly into new organizational cultures.

When we engage in authentic dialogue that is embodied, vulnerable, and open—we create the conditions for shifts in perspective to take place. Research across organizational studies, transformative learning, and my own research all support the claim that authentic dialogue creates spaces where real change happens—not when people are forced or coerced, but when they willingly shift their perspective (Mezirow, 1978; Levey, 2024, pp. 96-101; Pipere & Lorenzi, 2021; Burbules & Bruce, 2001).

This is the heart of Spaciology—not a playbook, but an invitation—a call to inhabit our lives, relationships, and organizations as open, generative spaces. By dissolving the walls around our hearts through embodied, spatial practices, we engage in a form of creative resistance that is both deeply personal and profoundly collective.

An attention to all spaces is how we move from separation to belonging, from rigidity to flow, from inherited boundaries to co-created possibility (Levey, 2024, pp. 142-150; Massey, 2005).

The Evidence for Dialogue
All kinds of research support the notion that authentic dialogue is the space where shifts in perspective occur (Pipere & Lorenzi, 2021; Levey, 2024, p. 117; Burbules & Bruce, 2001; Moore, 2018). Real change happens when people willingly shift their perspective—not when they reach for a playbook with the same “plays.” Dialogue is not just a method, but an embodied, relational, and transformative act that changes not only what we do, but who we are, together.