You could also say “why would you not have dialogue?”. In fact, the question “why dialogue?” makes perfect sense in the old-style bureaucratic organization, in which people have to stay within their well described boundaries in order for the bureaucratic procedures and other systems to assure management of optimal control.

Those organizations also have as a rule well defined paths of communication: who should communicate with whom, when and about what. 

However, in organizations which are not or no longer characterized by bureaucracy, aspiring to flexibility and benefiting from the value of the “human element”, it will be recognized that human nature knows dialogue, both within the human personality as well as within the many social structures in which human beings flourish. It will there be recognized that it sometimes makes perfect sense to have communication which is less structured and more crerative. From that realization, it is not so obvious to ask why one would have dialogue; rather, the opposite.

The attitude for dialogue, in which one is eager to express oneself in a true manner while connecting with others with respect and an eye on a subject that together will be explored, is not unnatural. Little children may do this without any formal instruction to do so. Some of that atitude is lost or pushed into the background with adults, but often is immediately recognized when it is made possible again.

Often, organizations discourage us from having a dialogue type of behavior and mindset, or we think that they do (which works out pretty much the same). Within organizations, we are often inclined to not speak our minds, but rather talk in a shallow or calculated manner. Within organizations, we are often discouraged from being inquisitive. And often we regard treating others with respect as a sign of weakness, and we have seen what can happen to you if you are weak.

The consequences of dialogue – which is in itself already valuable – are manifold. Communication will be more efficient. There is more creativity. The participants in the dialogue will have a better idea of who they are, both individually and as a team. Motivation is reinforced. To name only the most obvious consequences.

Some people shy away from dialogue, because they think it is 'soft' (which is often associated with 'weak'). It may indeed be perceived as such. But when one engages in dialogue, one often finds that it is much more 'hard' than many other forms of interaction, because it is often confrontational and brings to the surface a kind of unavoidable reality. Therefore, people who are afraid to engage in what might be 'soft' could be asked, if they have the guts to engage in dialogue.

• high quality listening
  
• postponing judgement
• focus on what is shared (e.g. a particular goal or vision), not on particular interests
• appreciation of the input of anyone, regardless of qualifications, age, experience, etc.
• high potential for creativity
• dialogue is not hypothetical, but a thorough exploration of reality
  

• dialogue is not always the most useful form of communication, so the question is when to switch from dialogue to different communication without losing the trust generated in dialogue
• dialogue takes time and patience (the flipside: it can be used to help develop patience)
• dialogue can be very confrontational and because of that it can give some dialogue participants the feeling to be cornered, with even conflict as a result