"Once
a society loses this capacity [to dialogue], all that is left is a
cacophony of voices battling it out to see who wins and who loses.
There is no capacity to go deeper, to find a deeper meaning that transcends
individual views and self interest. It seems reasonable to ask whether
many of our deeper problems in governing ourselves today, the so-called
"gridlock" and loss of mutual respect and caring might
not stem from this lost capacity to talk with one another, to think
together as part of a larger community."
- - Peter
M. Senge, in "A New View of Institutional Leadership" in
Reflections on Leadership
One might think
conversation is a relatively simple thing. And it is, since we do it
all the time: at the dinner table, with fellow travelers in the bus
or car, at the water fountain in the workplace. We exchange comments
about the weather, about what we did on the weekend, the latest show
we went to, how our favourite sports team is doing.
Some conversations
don’t last long:
"Hi."
- - - - - "Hi."
"How
are you today?"
- - - - - "Fine.
Yourself?
"Fine.
Great weather we’re having, eh?
- - - - - "Yes,
beautiful."
That’s a three-beat
conversation. Actually, it’s hardly a conversation at all, just passing
the time of day, a kind of caring or checking on the life of the other.
Other longer conversations are more like a reporting or interchange
system, where everyone gets a chance to say what they have been doing,
what they are into. There is no attempt to orchestrate it.
Some conversations
are a bit more organized. One thinks of the philosophers in ancient
Athens strolling through the Lyceum holding animated conversations
about life. Or one thinks of the literate coffee-house conversations
in Samuel Johnson’s London, or the salon discussions in Madame de
Stael’s
Paris.
Somewhere between
the learned conversations of the gentry and the interchange between
folk in the street is the guided conversation focused on a topic,
sometimes referred to as the "artform conversation," or the surface-to-depth
conversation. For the genesis of this, one has to go back to Socrates
and his use of conversation as a method for seeking deeper understanding…a
way of seeking the rock-bottom truth in what was being discussed. 2500
years ago, Socrates taught Western civilization the art of asking questions
as a tool for discovering reality. For Socrates, "the unexamined
life was not worth living." To find meaning in life, one had to
dig constantly, and to keep naming what one was finding. As we know,
not everybody liked what Socrates was digging up, and, so, he was disposed
of. Asking questions can be a dangerous business.
Now, in our time,
the depth conversation in the Socratic mode is coming into its own
again. As more organizations are shifting into management through
participation and consensus-making, more managers are learning the
Socratic way of processing information through asking questions,
instead of making pronouncements and giving orders. As an initiator
of many conversations the boss is becoming a facilitator, a leader
of real discussion.
The art of orchestrating
conversations is useful for consensus-making in small groups, for problem-solving,
trouble-shooting, coaching, research, and interpretation of all kinds
of data. What we constantly hear is that the more people practice
using structured dialogue, the more opportunities they find for it:
processing office flare-ups, reviewing the day, quarter, or year,
for evaluations, for making group decisions, even for office celebrations.
If it is true that solutions to problems reside in the collective
intelligence of employees at all levels, then structured conversations
are stellar problem solving tools. In any Learning Organization,
they provide ways for teams and groups to reflect constantly on their
experience and learn from it
developed by the Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA) as part
of its Technology of Participation (ToP™) has helped people
reflect on everything from poetry and movies, to the latest office
blow-up, to how to build better widgets, tractors and hamburgers,
and even how to give better health care. It is a relatively simple
process that enables a conversation to flow from surface to depth.
A facilitator leads the conversation through a series
of questions at four levels:
|
|
Purpose |
Example |
|
Objective |
Begin with
data, facts, external reality |
"What
did you actually see, hear or read?" |
|
Reflective |
Evoke
immediate personal reactions, internal responses, sometimes emotions
or feelings, hidden images, and associations with the facts |
"What
was your initiall reaction?" |
|
Interpretive |
Draw out meaning,
values, significance, implications |
"What
new insight did you get from this?" |
|
Decisional |
Bring the
conversation to a close, eliciting resolution and enabling the
group to make a decision about the future |
"What
do you think we should do?" |
This elegant method
has helped millions of people round the world. It has changed how people
converse with each other. Instead of bawling out subordinates, managers
have engaged them in a conversation which became a learning experience
for both. The method has given people ways to share their common concerns
and experiences in depth, rather than reacting with negative criticism.
It has resolved conflicts between people, and dealt authentically with
issues of value.
Imagine
a Conversation About Proposed Legislation
One wonders what
would happen in a large parliamentary committee if the members broke
into groups of eight, each led by a skilled facilitator, in a surface-to-depth
conversation on the proposed legislation. Imagine the discussion
over these questions:
| Objective
Questions |
- What is
in this bill?
- What precisely
does it propose?
- What does
it not propose?
|
| Reflective
Questions |
- What’s
your gut reaction to this bill?
- What parts
make you want to cheer?
- What parts
make you mad? Why?
|
| Interpretive
Questions |
- What are
the advantages of the bill?
- What are
its disadvantages?
- How could
we make it better?
- What priority
should this bill have?
- How important
is it compared to other bills?
|
| Decisional
Questions |
- What do
you hear as our recommendation on this bill?
- What decision
have we just made?
- Is this
what we will recommend?
|
Imagine the parliamentary
cameras trying to zero in on dozens of these conversations going on
at the same time. Quite a few other institutions would have to change
to accommodate such a revolution in procedures.
Discussing
a Presentation
We have all attended
terrible public meetings or lectures where someone standing high in
front pontificates to those below. After the talk, questions "from
the floor" are entertained, and a few people line up behind a
microphone while the rest wait silently, hoping to hear a valuable
tidbit. Just imagine the impact, if, after the lecture participants
broke up into groups of ten to discuss the presentation, with the help
of questions like these:
| Objective
Questions |
- What words
or phrases do you remember from the presentation?
|
| Reflective
Questions |
- Where were
you surprised?
- What came
through clearly?
- Where did
you disagree?
|
| Interpretive
Questions |
- What new
questions have emerged for you?
- What is
the underlying question we all seem to have?
|
| Decisional
Questions |
- What would
it take to try to answer this question and act on it?
|
The high level of
participation and action generated by such focused discussions have
a dramatic impact on the participants of such conferences. Often they
learn more from the discussion than they ever could from the speaker.
In the workplace
we find many situations where this learning tool can be used. Here’s
an example.
Conversation
with an Ineffective Employee
A supervisor has
become aware that an employee is not working effectively and constantly
misses deadlines. In the past, the supervisor would call the staffer
into an office and deliver a good bawling out. Suppose, instead,
the supervisor designs a conversation to hold with the employee to
bring home the seriousness of the situation, to hear the employee’s
perspective on what happened and to develop clear actions to be taken.
What follows is a conversation actually used by a supervisor in such
a case.
| Conversation
Opening |
It worries
me that deadlines have not been met so the quality of your work
may have deteriorated. I want to understand what is happening
so we can deal with it.
|
| Objective
Questions |
- What have
you been working on recently?
- What deadlines
are you aware you have missed?
- What happened
from your point of view?
- What can
you tell me about what’s been happening with your work?
|
| Reflective
Questions |
- How do you
feel about the work you do?
- What has
been most difficult for you in your work?
- Where have
you experienced pressure or frustration?
- What part
might I have played in causing this situation?
|
| Interpretive
Questions |
- What would
you say are the underlying issues behind these difficulties?
- How have
you noticed that other people deal with these difficulties?
- What practical
means could we take to enable you to complete your work on
time?
|
| Decisional
Questions |
- What can
you and I do to make sure your job is done effectively?
- What is
the first action we need to take?
- When can
you and I meet again and check signals on these decisions?
|
| Conclusion |
This is helpful
and I believe this will work. Thanks. If you start running into
difficulty again, please come and see me and I’ll see how
I can help. |
Note that the
supervisor has made no statements; there are no accusations. The
employee gets the opportunity to confess any lapses, and at the
same time to express how he experiences his work. Next, he gets
the opportunity to do his own self-analysis, and then decide what
he needs to do to remedy the situation. However, at no stage is
he let off the hook. Real accountability is going on here, emphasized
by the follow-up meeting. In short, the reality of the situation
has been honoured—even if the employee has
erred, his dignity and creativity are used in finding a solution.
Deciding
about Work Priorities
This conversation
is between several members of a department deciding about work priorities.
The situation is that they have just received several contracts all
of which must be completed by the end of the month. They feel overwhelmed.
An old, traditional solution would have been to give a big pep talk,
play on their guilt, confront them with a carrot or stick, or blackmail
them psychologically to work harder. Instead of that approach, a
focused conversation helps by drawing out the whole group’s concerns
and ideas for completing the contracts on time.
| Opening |
"We have
quite a challenge before us in the next few weeks. Let’s
look at what it will take to successfully accomplish our assignment." |
| Objective
questions |
Let’s
review each contract.
- What are
the main components of this contract?
- What products
are being called for?
|
| Reflective
questions |
- What is
relatively easy for us to deliver?
- What will
be difficult?
- What similar
experiences do we have with creating these kind of products?
- What skills
do we bring to this contract?
- What skills
or resources are we missing?
|
| Interpretive
questions |
- What are
the main tasks involved in fulfilling this contract?
- What people
from our team need to work on this contract?
- What skills
or resources will we need to bring in from other teams or organizations?
- What issues
will need to be resolved ?
|
| Decisional
questions |
- If we have
three weeks to finish this contract, what are the main tasks
of week 1?
- What about
week 2 and week 3?
- Who will
work on each task?
|
| Closing |
Well, this
is a good start. Let’s meet back a week from today and
see where we are. |
This conversation
helps the team acknowledge the challenge, see their advantages and vulnerabilities,
and strategize how to complete the job on time. The Focused Conversation
Method has enabled the team members to be their own best coaches.
Celebrating
an Employee’s Retirement
A staff person is
retiring after many years of service. Several people feel that "something
should be done" to hold up her achievements and express the staff’s
appreciation. The staff decide to hold an event to celebrate the retiring
Susan Cartier, and hold a conversation on her contribution to the organization.
Two different conversations could be appropriate at the event: one
is with Susan while the rest of the staff listens on; the second is
with the whole staff while Susan listens. This example deals with the
second.
| Opening |
It’s
a real pleasure to be gathered here in honour of Susan Cartier’s
retirement. We want to have a conversation about Susan and
what she has meant to all of us. I’m asking these questions
to everyone here. Anyone can answer. Please feel free to just
join in. No need to put your hand up or anything like that. |
| Objective
Questions |
- Who can
remember when Susan first came?
- How long
has she been around here?
- When did
any of us first run into Susan on the job?
- Who has
a quick story of an encounter with Susan?
|
| Reflective
Questions |
- What has
always surprised you about Susan?
- When you
think of Susan, what do you associate with her?
- What funny
incidents do you remember?
- What tasks
do you remember her involved in?
- What is
something that Susan said to you that you will always remember
|
| Interpretive
Questions |
- What has
Susan’s presence in the organization meant to us all?
- How would
we talk about Susan’s contribution to the organization?
- What difference
has Susan made in your life?
- What will
we miss when she’s not here any more?
|
| Decisional
Questions |
- What do
we wish for Susan as she leaves us and goes into retirement?
- What promise
would we claim for her future life?
|
| Closing |
Well, I
think we have said from our hearts what Susan means to us,
and how valuable she has been to this organization. Susan,
we wish you all the best for your future. (Make any presentation
that needs to be made) |
While the traditional
gold watch does express appreciation for Susan Cartier’s contribution
to the company, it does not highlight the uniqueness of the contribution,
or the quality of her relationship with the quality of her relationship
with her colleagues. Susan Cartier will remember this conversation for
the rest of her life. She may feel blessed and graced by the group’s
statements.
No
right answers
The leader has
nothing to teach. There are no right answers hidden up a secret sleeve.
Although we were brainwashed during school exams that right and wrong
answers are important, they do not exist in a Focused Conversation.
We ask questions to find out what actual answers might arise.
Use
open-ended questions
All questions
are open-ended and cannot be answered with a simple "yes"
or "no." Yes and no answers do not make for lively conversation,
not do they actually tell you very much. For example "What did
you like about it…or dislike?" is infinitely more interesting
than "Did you like it?" Creating open-ended questions is
more difficult than it seems. To think up open-ended questions and
arrange them in the most helpful order usually requires a good deal
of forethought.
Trust
the group’s wisdom
In order to ask
questions, you have to trust that the group has wisdom. The best
conversations confront the group seriously with a topic, but do not
reach a pat conclustion.
Be
specific
Specific questions
get better results. For example: "What points did Jim make?"
rather than "What do you remember about Jim’s speech". Ask
for specific illustrations and examples when people answer. If someone
makes a broad abstract statement, e.g. "Jim made vague observations
about our sales trends."; ask for a concrete example, "What
was one of them?"
Determine
the intent
To prepare a
conversation, decide the intent; then brainstorm questions, and
put them in the Objective - Reflective - Interpretive - Decisional
order. It often helps to write questions on little post-its and
then put them in order, or to create four columns of questions
(O-R-I-D) and move questions around between them. When the draft
is finished, rehearse it through in your head, imagining some answers
you might get. This may suggest better ways to ask the questions.
Versatility
It
is extremely versatile, which means that focused conversations
work as well with groups of strangers, as with long-term colleagues.,
It works with people of mixed backgrounds and age, as well as with
more homogeneous groups. It works as well with people of mixed
backgrounds and ages as with more homogeneous groups.
Focus
It
provides an excellent way to focus people on a topic long enough
to determine what direction is needed. This kind of focus is a
time saver, and often a saver of psychological energy.
Sidetracks Power Games
The
process has a way of sidetracking politicking and power plays.
It pushes people to be creative rather than critical.
Listening
It
provides room for real listening. People don't have to yell and
fight for the floor to be heard.
Positivive thinking
It
sidetracks negative thinking. Each person's comments are received;
none are disqualified or struck from the record.
Clear thinking
The
method applies a structure to the thinking process, which prevents
a conversation from drifting aimlessly along. It saves time by
reducing meeting times through a disciplined group thinking process.
Honest communication
It
allows honesty: People who know that their responses will be accepted
like everybody else's feel free to say what they really think and
feel. The experience of such honesty is often releasing, surprising
and refreshing.
This introduction to the Focused Conversation Method
is adapted from
“The
Art of Focused Conversation - 100 ways to access group wisdom in
the workplace" by
R. Brian Stanfield.
New Society Publishers – Copyright 1997 – The
Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs
|