We live in a world where some moments are simple, some
moments are complicated, some moments are complex, and some moments are
chaotic. If the world were always simple, then each of us could make decisions
and easily predict the outcomes. If the world were always complicated, then
each of us could research our options, make decisions, and likely predict the
outcomes. If the world were always complex, then each of our individual
decisions would impact each other and outcomes would likely be unpredictable.
If the world were always chaotic, then it might appear as though we don’t even
have decisions to make, almost as if decisions were being made for us as we
react and respond to the environment around us.
Please pause a moment to slowly consider these three questions:
- What would it look like to have a “conversational approach” to your life?
- Do you spend more time in “conversation mode” (e.g. working with people) or in “action mode” (e.g. completing a task)?
- Are you intentional, choiceful and aware of how many jovial conversations you have, and how many intense conversations you have, and any other type of conversation that you have?
Our civilizations appear to have tremendous progress in
handling simple and complicated moments. Simple and complicated moments are
often directly related to cause-and-effect. We’ve become quite skilled at
seeing cause and effect, especially when we’ve previously experienced the cause
or the effect. However, in complex and chaotic environments, we seem to make
more mistakes. Although mistakes can provide an opportunity for learning and
improvement, there are many approaches for skillfully operating in complex and
chaotic environments. One of the emerging approaches for living in a highly
complex and connected world is being called Conversational Leadership.
In several of this books, Jungian psychotherapist Dr James
Hollis talks about how the first half of life is about being happy, the second
half of life is about making sense. This line of thinking often sparks thoughtful
and intriguing conversation. Those conversations can offer different
perspectives and provide each of us an opportunity to understand ourselves and
each other better. It is through conversation that each of us can partner and
understand each other in a deeper, more meaningful way. We can try to make
sense of the complexity and chaos around us through conversation.
In simple and complicated moments, we’ve become quite
skilled at taking action in order to make progress. In complex and chaotic
moments, it may be helpful to remind ourselves of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s quote
that “the ancestor of every action is a thought.” In conversation we have
opportunities to share those thoughts, clarify those thoughts and even raise
awareness of the thoughts themselves.
Conversational Leadership is an emerging broad field that
includes leading, designing, cultivating, and convening conversations. Those
conversations are intended to be purposeful, intentional, choiceful and as
skilled as the group is ready to be. That said, Conversational Leadership
intends to apply to all conversations, regardless of their type. It is also
important to note that Conversational Leadership intends to be valuable to
everyone, because the field views everyone as a Conversational Leader (not only
positionally ranked “leaders”). Admittedly, the field is tending to be focused on conversations within organizations at this point.
The field is so new that even the label itself is debated – it
could be Conversational Management, Conversation Management, Conversational
Communityship, Conversation Architecture, is it Conversation Design, or so many
other options. Some people might say that many leaders are not conversational
in their approach, they tend to demand or dictate and have little range outside
of those options (and have even be quite skilled in how they present those
demands so they don’t necessarily come across as demands). Some people might
say that “most conversations are not designed, or poorly designed”. Some people
might say that many of the recent advances in fields such as Project
Management, Information Technology, Human Resources, Operations are due to
improved conversations and collaboration, so Conversational Leadership is about
“shining a direct light on conversation itself, as opposed to improving
conversations for a specific outcome”. Similar to other broad fields, such as
Knowledge Management or Organisation Development, it might be quite challenging
to pinpoint an exact label or definition for the field. Each of those options
could result in their own manifesto or definition, and maybe Conversational
Leadership is the amalgamation of many fields related to conversation, even
including the science of conversation which has existed for some time to study
the rhythms within conversations.
For now, maybe we consider the model below as one way to
look at Conversational Leadership.
This framework is probably too complicated and could be
simplified. Let’s step through each area of the framework, and open the
conversation for feedback and improvement.
General Purpose of
Conversation
In the top bar we see “General Purpose of Conversation” and “Current
Need”. The general purpose of conversation can be highly debated, but in the
case of Conversational Leadership, we’re referring to making sense of a highly
complex and connected world. The general purpose of conversation from this perspective
would be to partner and understand each ourselves, each other, and our situation(s)
through conversation. It is about enabling our best ability to act and improve.
The “Current Need” refers to your current needs in any
active conversation that you’re having. It also refers to the needs of the
other people in the conversation. Even more complex, it also refers to the
needs of the entire group. Group needs are often different from individuals’
needs. As simple as it sounds, it can be quite difficult to be aware of your
deepest needs in any given conversation. It can also be difficult to express
your deepest needs in any conversation. For example, imagine you’re standing at
a train station and the person next to you starts a conversation with you about
the weather. Do you need to discuss the weather because that topic might begin
to build trust and lead to the next topic. Or, do you need to have a personal
conversation about a recent death in the family because that topic completely
occupies your mind. As I learned in acting school, maybe its not only “needs”
that are relevant, maybe it is “needs, wants and desires”. Then, its not only
about the topic that’s being discussed, then it also becomes about “how” and “when”
and “where” and many other facets of the conversation.
Imagine if we were all skilled at knowing the general purpose
of conversation, and our current needs/wants/desires in this conversation, and
how to express those needs/wants/desires. The two key questions in this area
could be:
- Are you having the conversation you need to be having right now?
- Are we having it in the way we need to be having it?
Leadership and
Communityship
Notice that there are 2 columns in this model. The left
column is much wider than the right column. The left column focuses on “conversation”,
while the right column focuses on “leadership”. The “Leadership and
Communityship” is less fleshed out than the conversational column because many
decades of work have been done in leadership. Henry Mintzberg coined the term “Communityship”,
which if I understand it correctly, is attempting to say that maybe we need to
augment individual leadership with group-level leadership which could be called
“Communityship.”
Conversational Theories
& Models
Underneath “General Purpose of Conversation” we see “Conversational
Theories & Models.” There are dozens of well-received books/models that offer
how to have certain kinds of conversations. For example, but not limited to,
there are books on crucial conversations, healing conversations, deep
conversations, non-violent communications, influencing, negotiating, etc. There
are also quite helpful models such as polarity thinking/mapping that can serve
to enable highly-aware conversations. Conversational Leadership, at this point,
simply aims to be a pointer to the many existing models that support improved
conversational skills. Stay tuned to this area though, there is hope that the
field itself could result in new conversational theories and models.
Conversational “Sets”
Next to theories & models, we see “Conversational Sets”.
At first, we listed mindset, skillset and toolset, we later added John Hagel’s
spirit-set and heart-set. Each one of these boxes again offers a list of
pointers.
Conversational Mindset could include conversational beliefs
and principles such as “everyone has an equal voice” and “time for feedback and
collective sense-making”, etc. The idea is to be aware of the mindset you’re brining
into each conversation, and the patterns you have across all of your
conversations.
Conversational Skillset includes your conversational behaviours
and habits. For example, within your conversational skillset, what is your behaviour
for making time to reflect? What are your listening habits? The list of
conversational behaviours and habits is quite extensive, so in Conversational
Leadership we are working to raise awareness of your conversational behaviours/habits
and their impact on yourself, others and the situation.
Conversational Toolset includes a long list of “tools” for
designing conversations. For example, we could use a knowledge café design or
an after action review design for conversation. Liberating Structures is a
related field that offers at least 30 different conversational designs.
Conversational Leadership could have a Conversational Toolkit to include
conversational processes and even software that support conversation.
Above mindset, skillset, toolset, you'll notice spirit-set and heart-set. Credit (and further detail) goes to John Hagel for these concepts. If I understand them correctly, these concepts are to remind us that mindset, skillset and toolset tend to come from the brain, whereas heart-set and spirit probably come from somewhere else. Maybe it is the difference between mind and brain, maybe its the difference between thinking and feeling, maybe it is something else. From a Conversational Leadership perspective, spirit-set and heart-set are intended to be reminders that our conversational spirit and our conversational heart/emotions are well worth being aware of, and potentially even bringing into the conversation.
Current Conversation
At the bottom of the conversational left column, we see “Current
Conversation” and “Applied Conversational Skills”. This area is intended to
remind us that Conversational Leadership can be applied in every conversation
by every person at any given time. It is meant to be the real-time application
of all the other areas of the Conversational Leadership framework. In other
words, during a conversation, am I able to “see” the conversational design, the
conversational process, my own needs, the general purpose of the conversation?
Can I embed light structure or facilitation if and when necessary? Am I aware,
and listening for, individual and group needs? What is being said in the
conversation, what might be covertly being said or not said in the conversation
that is impactful? This area of the
framework is simply intended to be a reminder that Conversational Leadership is
an applied discipline, it can be considered within every conversation.
Impact &
Improvement Loops
You might notice the arrows on the far left and far right of
the framework. These arrows are designed to remind us that every conversation
has an impact on ourselves, on others and on our situation. If we approach
conversations in a meaningful way, ready to learn and improve (not only the
task and topic, but our conversational skills as well), then we can likely begin
to live life in a conversational way. The hope and drive of Conversational Leadership
is to connect with each other, make sense of our situations, and carry forward
as best we can.
Your Feedback
Having read this, what do you now think of Conversational
Leadership? What does the concept of Conversational Leadership evoke in you? Can
you think of times where Conversational Leadership would directly improve your situation?
Can you imagine where the field of Conversational Leadership could go?
