Transcript Designing Conversations

Designing Conversations to
Improve Business Theory
and Practice
and to Encourage a More
Participatory Culture in the
Workplace
A presentation by Skip Rowland and Jim Wolford-Ulrich at the annual
conference of the International Leadership Association, Nov. 5, 2004
Session Outline
 Dialogue as design process and product
 Courageous Conversations
 Definition and conceptual overview
 Lessons from the field:
 Using courageous conversations in the Seattle
Public Schools
 Skill building in a dialogue ‘practice group’
 Using structured dialogue in a business setting
 Using dialogue to form a learning community
 Implications for leaders
 Q & A / Discussion
Communication Can Be Designed
 Organizational members –
guided by leaders – can
establish norms and
protocols for communication
 Requires facilitated
implementation:



assessment / planning
skill training / practice
measurement / feedback
 Purposes served:







 Intended to complement

other forms of
communication – not
replace them


Divergent thinking
Root cause analysis
Joint application
development
Scenario planning /
rehearse execution
Create shared vision
Resolve conflict
Move beyond impasse
Deepen trust
Enhance safety and
openness
Build community
Design as Process / Product
 Design is what leaders do – they create with




others preferred social realities
Design processes are guided by vision /
purpose / design intention
Design is collaborative: we “co-design”
Design – like conversation – has an emergent
quality – we don’t fully know at the outset the
outcome we intend
Designs that ‘work’ become ‘design patterns’
that can be adapted and fitted to new situations
Presenter Bio
Educational Credentials

Chapman Univ - B.S. Social
Science
 Gonzaga Univ - M.S. Management
Science
 Seattle Univ - Ed.Doc.
Educational Leadership
Professional Experience







Entrepreneur – Business Owner
Professor of Leadership Studies
Global Learner
Corporate Executive
Government Administrator
Race Relations, U.S.A.F.
Child and Family Therapist
Courageous Conversations
 Use of structured dialogue as an intervention
to address racism within Seattle Public
Schools.
 Transformational Leadership – Leadership
model for institutional change.
 Culture – Groups with a socially shared
meaningful structure.
 Institutional Racism – Organizational
behavior that systematically subordinates an
individual or group.
The C.A.R.E. Package Learning System
A model for structured dialogue and courageous
conversations
The Human Brain
Mammalian
Brain
Reptilian
Brain
Preparation of the Imagination:
Vision Building
Transformational Communications
Sender
Bridge of Trust
1. Good Ideas
2. Appropriate
Language
Receiver
1. Open Mind
Feed Forward
2. Read and Listen
3. Decode
3. Respect the
Receiver
4. Respectful
Feedback
4. Read and Listen
Interpersonal Gap
Feed Back
Reciprocal flow of influence
Transformational Attitudes
INPUT
SOURCES
FIVE SENSES
Self Talk = Inner voice
Self Image = Self Portrait
Self Esteem = Feelings
Self Expectation = Beliefs
Hearing
Family
Touch
Friends
Brain
Taste
Managers
Smell
Filter
Peers
Sight
Media
BEHAVIOR
Responsible and
Transformational Goals
Reaction
Reactive Model
Motivating
Action
Behavior
Able to Respond
Reflective Model
Motivating
Action
Freedom
to Design
Intention
Appropriateness
Behavior
Reframing
Judgment
Goals are targets for the mind!
Strategic Effort
Collaborative & Reflective
Performance Evaluation
Courageous Conversation
Performance Evaluation
Vision
Communications
Attitudes
____
____
____
____
Goals
____
Resources
____
Effort
____
Overall Score
100%
Additional “Lessons
from the Field”
Field notes – Setting 1
 Dialogue “practice group”
 7+ Training and OD professionals met
monthly over a period of 4 years
 Format:




Check in
Dialogue
Check out
Debrief
 Outcomes
Lessons Learned – Setting 1
 Having the ‘form’ (purpose and protocols) and
the vocabulary facilitated skill acquisition

The ‘debrief’ was an important element that
promoted group learning
 After a “critical mass” of participants gained
competence in the structured dialogue form, we
felt more free to improvise and adapt the form

When new members entered the group, it helped to
go back to using the form and protocols
Field notes – Setting 2
 High tech, telecom R&D company
 Fast-paced, action-oriented culture
 As an outgrowth of a middle-manager
leadership development program, multiple work
groups become intentional around ‘learning
organization’ skills:
Shared vision
 Mental models
 Systems thinking

Personal mastery
 Team learning
 Dialogue

 HR & learning and development staff
formed a ‘community of practice’
Lessons Learned – Setting 2
 Expect frustration and a perceived sense
of failure / irrelevance at first
 Readiness is key
 Embed the practice of dialogue in
solving real problems

Example: two work teams discovering they
were ‘accidental adversaries’
 Scatter the seeds widely and water
liberally
Field notes – Setting 3
 Teaching masters-level students team
learning concepts & skills:



Left hand column
Ladder of inference
Balancing advocacy with inquiry
 These became ‘building block’ core
competencies for self-leadership and for
productive group processes
Lessons Learned – Setting 3
 Concepts are relatively easy to understand, but
frustratingly difficult to practice, let alone master
 Having a shared vocabulary enables peer
coaching, feedback


Over time, these skills can be instilled in the culture of
a learning community / cohort
Modeling the skills (e.g., by faculty) is essential
 These are core “self-leadership” competencies and
form the basis for a transforming leadership
practice as described by Quinn, Kegan, and others
Courageous Conversations
Reflective Exercise
 Pair off in twos.
 Write the words “Black” and “White” on your
pads.
 Write down under each word the emotions
you associate with that word.
 Summarize your findings.
 Report out to the large group.
Implications for Leaders
 Important conversations can and should be
designed

“Producing intentional change is facilitated by
intentional communication” (Ford & Ford).
 Change happens in dialogue
 Conversation is not merely planning for change that
will occur later.
 Dialogue and collaborative inquiry promote
generative learning

Dialogue enables followers to do the ‘adaptive work’
leadership requires (Heifetz).
Guidelines for Action*
 Create space for dialogue and
conversation
 Generate awareness, cultivate skills
 Build in continuous feedback

For example, by using facilitators & mentors,
providing open forums, and encouraging reflection
 Create individual and collective
scenarios for desired futures
 Trust the process
*Adapted from Kurt April (1999) in Leadership & Organization Development Journal
Your thoughts and
questions?
Thank You!
Presenter Contact Info
Skip Rowland, Ed.D.
Professor of Leadership &
Management Sciences
Antioch University
2326 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98121
P: 253.839.6321
C: 206.227.7215
E: [email protected]
Jim Wolford-Ulrich, Ph.D.
Team Leader, Leadership
Faculty
School of Leadership &
Professional Advancement
Duquesne University
600 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15282
P: 412.396.1640
F: 412.396.4711
E: [email protected]
References
 April, K. A. (1999). Leading through
communication, conversation and dialogue.
Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 20(5), 231ff.
 Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of
conversations in producing intentional change
in organizations. The Academy of Management
Review, 20(3), 541ff.
 Whyte, D. (2004). Five conversations on the
frontiers of leadership. Leader to Leader 33, 2024.
Additional Slides
The Ladder of Inference
Adopt
Beliefs & Assumptions
Make
Inferences
Reach
Conclusions
Add
Personal/Cultural Meaning
Start With
Observable Data
Dialogue & Mental Models
 “We are coming to believe that this ‘slip ‘twixt
cup and lip’ stems, not from weak intentions,
wavering will, or even non-systemic
understanding, but from mental models. More
specifically, new insights fail to get put into
practice because they conflict with deeply held
internal images of how the world works, images
that limit us to familiar ways of thinking and
acting.”
Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline
Left Hand Column Exercise
What I’m Thinking
(or Feeling)
What Is Said






“Tacit Assumptions Which Govern our Conversation and
Contribute to Blocking our Purpose in Real Life Situations”
The Left Hand Column (LHC)
 What led me to think and feel this way?
 What was my intention?
 Did I achieve the results? How?
 How did my comments contribute to the difficulties?
 Why didn’t I share my left hand column?
 What assumptions am I making about others?
 What is the cost of operating this way?
 What was the other person’s LHC?
Note: Some LHC thoughts should stay hidden!
Advocacy / Inquiry Protocols
 Improve Advocacy



Make your thinking process visible
Publicly test your conclusions and
assumptions
Walk up the ladder slowly
 Improve Inquiry




Ask others to make their thinking visible
Use unaggressive language
Compare your assumptions to theirs
Gently walk others down your ladder
Intentional Dialogue Principle 1
 Suspend Judgment
Avoid categorizing people based on
their ideas.
 Avoid jumping to conclusions.
 Question your own assumptions.

Intentional Dialogue Principle 2
 Speak from Awareness
 Be aware of others around you.
 Listen intently to what is said and what
is not said.
 Be aware of yourself and how you are
feeling.
 Speak from personal experience.
 Speak when moved -- not just to
break a silence.
Intentional Dialogue Principle 3
 Hold the Space for Difference
Be slow to respond to others' ideas.
 Entertain multiple views of reality.
 Accept that others don't see reality the
way you do.

Intentional Dialogue Principle 4
 Speak to the Center
Disassociate what is said from who
said it (and from what his or her
position in the organization is).
 Respond to ideas, not to people.
 Honor the collective mind.

Intentional Dialogue Principle 5
 Balance Advocacy and Inquiry
 Share your left hand column.
 Make your thinking process visible.
Walk others up your ladder of inference
slowly.
 Publicly test your conclusions and
assumptions.
 Ask as well as tell. Invite others to
slowly walk you down their ladder of
inference.
 It’s okay to wonder out loud.
The “Check In” Process
What is a “check-in”? How does it work?
 Everyone (in no special sequence) says something about “where
they’re at” -- then says “I’m in.”

Members speak when they feel moved, not merely to fill the silence
between others’ talking.
 Comments are fairly brief and may be about their personal life, things
they are excited about, potential distractions, or just how they feel at
the moment -- whether ‘good’ or ‘bad.’

The check-in is not intended to be a comprehensive summary of
everything that has happened to the speaker since the group last met!
 Others accept whatever is said -- without commenting, responding or
taking responsibility for how others are feeling. Whatever is – just is.
 Other members acknowledge each person’s presence with a
“Welcome!” or “Thank you!”
Benefits of the “Check-In”
The “check-in” may appear to be an artificial group ritual.
Here’s the substance behind it:
 Encourages participation
 Symbolically gives everyone a voice
 Reinforces a climate of safety, since whatever is said is accepted
 Helps each participant become more aware of his or her own inner
states and feelings and how they may be affecting their participation in
the group
 Helps each person be present and focused on the here and now
 Encourages people to speak personally (e.g., by using “I statements”)
and thus to take responsibility for their own feelings and actions
The “Check Out” Process
What is a “check-out”? How does it work?
 A “Check-out” is often used to conclude a conversation, meeting or series
of meetings that was opened with a “check-in.”
 Everyone (in no special sequence) says something about “where they’re
at” after – and as a result of – the conversation(s) they’ve just experienced.
The traditional closing words are “I’m out.”

Members speak when they feel moved, not merely to fill the silence
between others’ talking.
 Comments are fairly brief and reflect how they feel at the moment:

Members share a key insight they gained, a fear they have about going
back to ‘reality,’ a word of appreciation, or any other thoughts or feelings -whether ‘good’ or ‘bad.’
 Others accept whatever is said -- without commenting, responding or
taking responsibility for how others are feeling. Whatever is – just is.
Rationale for the “Check-Out”
The “check-out” is a useful conversational form for several reasons:

Meets a psychological need people have for closure.
 Reinforces a safe communication climate, since whatever is said is accepted.


Members will be more likely to participate in the group in the future if they
experience that their thoughts and ideas are accepted.
The discipline of a check-out maintains the integrity of the conversation(s) which
precede it.

Like bookends which keep a row of books upright, the check-in and check-out
encourage participants to keep their conversation focused, intentional and
purposeful.
Note: a check-out may be followed by a ‘debrief,’ in which participants comment on how
well they kept the form of the check-in, meeting or dialogue, and/or check-out.

Reflections about how well group members performed in any of these relative to
their stated purpose belong in a debrief, not the check-out.
Five Courageous Conversations
We Need to Have*
We need to have the conversation we’re not having . . .
1. with the unknown future - what lies over the horizon
2. with a present customer, a patient, a vendor, who all
represent the future as it's lapping up against the side of
our organization
3. between different divisions of the organization
4. in our work group, among our colleagues - people we
see every day, or people we e-mail or talk to on our cell
phone every day
5. with that tricky moveable frontier called ourself
Source: David Whyte in Leader to Leader (Summer 2004)
Types of Conversations
 The ‘what
happened?’
conversation
 The ‘feelings’
conversation
 The ‘identity’
conversation
Source: Stone, Patton, Heen &
Fisher. (1999). Difficult
Conversations: How to Discuss
what Matters Most
Conversations for
 Initiating
 Understanding
 Performance
 Closure
Source: Ford & Ford. (1995, July).
The Academy of Management
Review.