CHAPTER 3

Conversing

What’s the Big Idea?

At the heart of people interactions across the world is the practice of conversing. So common are our conversations that the practice often barely gets noticed. And yet, conversation, in its different forms, is what brings our systems into life and sustains or ends them. It is the breath of human organizing.

Conversation can be defined as an experience between two or more people who, through the expression of thoughts and feelings, create new ideas, perspectives, and understandings. Each person has their own life experiences of conversation. Conversation is an interaction between people, usually face to face, that includes careful listening, freedom to express views, affirmation, a sense of equality, emotional responses, shared meanings, and a sense of change in the perceptions held by each participant. The willingness to create an accepting space where focused listening is offered sets a conversation apart from much of the everyday talking at work. Technology in its various forms can mediate some great conversations but tends more to be used to communicate information. This is a valuable role but it is different from conversing.

Margaret Wheatley (2009) offers a more succinct definition of conversing:

“where we each have a chance to speak, we each feel heard and we each listen well.” (p. 3)

Beyond the human interaction that often brings us great personal satisfaction are some important ideas that connect conversing with both development and design in complex systems;

1. The idea that organizations, and systems, are not separate entities from our own activities but rather are the expressions of patterns of conversations. Patricia Shaw (2002) argues that organizing can be primarily thought of as a self-organizing emergent conversational process. In effect, conversing is organizing, and organizing is conversing. The two are indistinguishable.

   If we accept this idea, then conversing needs to move center stage in our work of developing systems. In effect, our conversations will create and develop our systems. To put it another way, rather than creating and maintaining networks of conversations, organizations and systems exist solely as conversing networks.

2. If we accept this first idea, then we need to ask ourselves how real are our organizations? If they are networks of active conversations, then how can we grasp what is happening within and between them in the wider system. The second idea, drawing on the work of key social constructionist thinkers Berger and Luckmann (1966), proposes that not only are conversations the process through which we construct reality, they also become our collective reality. In effect, what we speak about with one another becomes our lived reality. It is not possible to separate the two. Organizing therefore becomes a process of cocreating human reality through conversing. It can take time to fully grasp this idea since it stands in contrast to the notion that social “reality” is distinct from our everyday life and is something we can objectively observe and critique from a distance.
3. Jones (2010) explores the idea that in conversing about the intention to design, the designer is not only inviting participation but also adopting a philosophical stance that sees designing as conversing. The two being so interlinked that it is not possible to differentiate between them. In this idea the emphasis is on intentionality. Both conversations and design processes are intentional. They have purposes in mind. In the context of co-design, they also both share a social dimension. Jones goes on to suggest that it is possible to differentiate designing conversations into two broad categories. One type is conversations exploring possibilities while the other leads to specific actions.

Over the past century or so, for a variety of reasons organizational leaders have largely neglected conversing. We still hear the expression “less talk and more action” from people who sincerely believe that conversation is a secondary activity. Our contention is that conversing is fundamental to the reality of organizing. The process shapes and directs trajectories of systems, and the language creates a profound sense of reality. In designing services in complex systems, conversation makes the links between the elements and shapes all our understandings about what is happening moment by moment. In the next section we will expand this argument.

Why Is Conversing Important?

Given the perspectives on conversing outlined in the previous section, we can draw out several key reasons why attending to the practice of conversing is essential in complex systems, especially through the recursive process of co-design.

Conversing, in a system context, can be viewed as follows:

• A means by which human realities are developed

  Through conversations with others, individuals together begin to construct a social reality. No such reality exists outside the interactions that take place between people. We can see in organizational and system life representations of such reality, for example, written reports, websites, blogs, and symbols. These though emerge out of the flow of human conversation. Through the mediation of technology, they can stimulate new conversations through posing new questions and challenges. But it is the human interaction that shapes what develops. Our sense of what is reality is mediated in part by the language we collectively use to describe reality. This is not straightforward, since meanings of words and sentences are also personal and very nuanced. The result is that constructing social realities through conversation is a struggle with potential for conflict and division. It also means that reality is always in flux and emergent. There is not a point when we can say this is “true” reality. This is even more so in the case of a system where many diverse voices and languages contribute to the conversations. Engaging these voices in co-designing processes presents challenges and tensions for all involved. We may feel very confident in our own beliefs, built up perhaps through years of routine conversations. New voices bringing new questions begin to enter our conversations and inevitably create disturbances and shifts. In this way, our own experience of reality shifts.

• One expression of relational politics between individuals and groups

  Organizations and systems are contexts in which conversing is one process by which the relationships between groups and individuals are negotiated and defined. The ebb and flow of conversation defines and refines the power dynamics between elements of the system. This may, through language, become quite ritualized and apparently fixed in an organization where norms of behaving and speaking are quite established. In a complex system, however, it is much more likely that there is fluidity in relational politics with different groups shaping conversations at different times. That is not to ignore the possibility of dominant voices who aim to control conversations and shape the relationships. Often this is attempted through encouraging discourses on preferred topics. Such discourses come to be seen for a time as the accepted reality. However, because change is underway in the system, shifts take place, sometimes imperceptibly and new questions and themes in conversations develop and become apparent. As they do, so the power dynamics between groups also shift.

• Involving our physical presence in the world and our consciousness of it and each other (including our presence in systems)

  In the process of co-design, we can get quite wrapped up in ideas and design. Conversing brings us back to the reality of our own physical presence in a world that we share with others. Speaking and listening require physical effort and a physical presence. Technology can split the voice from the physical presence. Conversing face to face reunites the voice with the person. We hear and learn much more from the physical presence of a person than we ever can via other mediums. We sense the body language more accurately, and we have a human sense of another person that is lost to us otherwise. Service co-design is ultimately with people and for people. Conversing reminds us of our shared humanity, and this then helps shape designs to be more human in orientation.

• A way in which a desire for a better world (of work) may be voiced and shared

  Listening to many conversations at work it is noticeable how many are concerned with development. Maybe the concern is about how a service can be improved or perhaps a discussion about new ways of working. Within the human spirit is an optimistic sense. People are always keen to explore how something may be changed for the better. It maybe that this is manifest in moans or complaints—but behind these lies a belief in a better world of work. Conversing enables these aspirations to become known and shared. As they become shared, so the belief that things might improve also emerges and becomes a reality over time. Without voicing and sharing our views it is questionable whether any development might occur at all. This puts conversing at the heart of system development. Conversing creates the impetus for co-design. Without it no collective work will take place.

• An experience in which people share and create ideas not owned by an individual but essentially shared by all

  As well as building the impetus for co-design, conversing enables co-designing to become a practice. Put simply, without conversation co-design will never happen. Conversation fosters a sharing of perspective and insights that leads to ideas that emerge out of collective wisdom. Conversing opens up new ideas that previously have not been apparent. People begin to see possibilities that have been hidden. Often these only emerge when different ideas are blended. Conversation is the process by which conscious blending happens. This puts conversing center stage when thinking about practicing co-design in a complex system. We are keen to have sufficient depth and breadth of ideas on service co-design. The route to access them will be through conversation. Conversation is a manifestation of the intersubjectivity, or shared life, of all of us.

• A space for meaning-making controlled by individuals (rather than having to accept the meanings suggested or imposed by others)

While conversing is a shared activity, it also offers the individual an opportunity to contribute to an emerging reality. This offers the potential of a greater equality of voice and influence between co-designers. Not only do they share in the process of co-design but they also enable meaning-making at the same time. The meaning of what is being designed is intertwined with the service or product that emerges. It is not possible to separate the two out.

Conversing brings about new realities. It is a co-design process that also contributes to the lived experience of human systems. It is difficult to underestimate its importance.

What Are the Implications for Practice?

Developing the mindset and practices of a conversationalist enables us to intentionally support conversing in whatever context we work.

A Host of Conversations

As a conversational practitioner we can choose to act as a host of conversations. The word host implies a willingness to cocreate spaces with people where conversation is likely to occur. This involves letting go of control of content and opening ourselves up to the potential for self-organization. Hosting is a pattern and a practice that value people as people and help them express their humanity in the context of meaningful human relationships. In working with conversation, we appreciate that what it calls for from us is not just the use of a set of tools but also a new way of being and relating to others. This new way of being is not a vague change in aspects of your personality but an intentional commitment to host conversations (Lewis, Passmore, and Cantore 2016).

Becoming a Conversationalist

Given the centrality of conversation in conversational processes, the practitioner needs a deep understanding of the skills, behaviors, and emotional presence that support co-design conversations. We suggest that the following abilities and attitudes can be developed in each of us to support our practice as conversationalists:

• Listening to others

  The act of listening challenges us to be quiet and open with ourselves. As we do so we can begin to hear and be affected by what others are saying. It is possible to read plenty of books about listening “techniques” and still miss the point. One of the challenges is the development of our authenticity as listeners. This means we listen, not because we must but because we are genuinely curious and care about the speaker and what they are seeking to communicate (Stone, Patton, and Heen 1999). This also involves practicing being present and attentive.

• Listening to yourself

  As we listen to others, so it is helpful to practice listening to ourselves and the inner conversations that accompany external conversing. This is not something that we can necessarily be consistent in doing, but this rather helps us to check if our inner voice is preventing us from truly listening to others.

• Listening for shared meaning

  As we host conversations among groups of people, so we need to allow ourselves to become aware of the emergence of shared meaning. We can listen superficially and miss the streams of meaning that become present as conversations interconnect. Instead, what we perceive is just a lot of chatter. To counter this, it is useful to practice having an ear that is attuned to the interrelationships between the perceptions and insights that are occurring in the room. As we do so the “whole” becomes apparent and will become so not just to ourselves but to others as well.

• Offering others help to listen effectively

  Margaret Wheatley (2002) offers us a helpful observation when she stresses the importance of listening and, more particularly, the need for us to recognize that we need each other’s help to become better listeners. She talks of acknowledging the difficulties we face in listening effectively. No matter how good our intentions may be, there will be many distractions in our lives and our personalities that make listening a struggle.

• Developing our personal values

  In true conversation, our values become obvious quite quickly. If we really don’t believe in the value of conversing in co-design, then that will become clear. We are not going so far as to say that conversation will be completely ineffective but that most is to be gained by all concerned when we as hosts “walk the talk” and are consistent, as far as possible, in our life and practice.

• Developing self-awareness

  Given the emotional challenges conversation can present, a good degree of self-awareness gives the conversational practitioner greater freedom to choose conversational approaches that suit the circumstances. We also believe that self-awareness is critical in being able to hear and act upon feedback in a way that supports the personal learning of practitioner.

• Holding intention

  To work with conversation requires a degree of intentionality. It is necessary to maintain a purposefulness and seriousness about the way we convene conversations or participate in them. That’s not to say we become humorless and dry but rather we should be always alert to the possibilities of a conversation developing. We should try to ensure that we remain present, authentic, and an active, positive, participant.

  In the practice of conversing, not only will those we host change their realities but we ourselves will change and so will our perspective on what it is we are co-designing.

System Practice

There are a growing number of processes that help enable conversations across systems. In the past 10 years, organizational change practitioners and academics have labelled this body of theory and practice “dialogic organization development.” Bushe and Marshak (2009) describe this as a paradigm in which the following happens:

• “The change process emphasizes changing the conversations that normally take place in the system.
• The purpose of inquiry is to surface, legitimate, and/or learn from the variety of perspectives, cultures, and/or narratives in the system.
• The change process results in new images, narratives, texts, and socially constructed realities that affect how people think and act.
• The change process is consistent with traditional organization development values of collaboration, free and informed choice, and capacity building in the client system.” (p. 362)

In a handbook of Dialogic Organization Development, Bushe and Marshak (2015) identify no fewer than 40 distinct processes available to leaders and change agents who plan to use a conversational approach in support of system development. Space precludes a discussion of each. However, World Café and Open Space are two that stand out as practical and flexible processes to engage people.

World Café

By recreating a café atmosphere, anywhere between 12 and 1,500 people can feel relaxed and encouraged to have a series of 20- to 30-minute conversations around a question that matters. Volunteer table hosts remain at the tables to connect conversations while participants move two or three times to new tables. At the end of each round of conversations, the café host facilitates a whole café conversation that surfaces underlying themes and key insights. The process can then be repeated with a new question.

For more detailed guidance on how to host a World Café, go to: http://www.theworldcafe.com/

Open Space

Open Space begins with self-selected participants meeting in a circle to sit and consider a predetermined theme, moves on to working with a community bulletin board, and later moves on to a market place that helps participant’s structure their own agendas and meetings. A series of self-managed conversations usually lasting about one-and-a-half hours then follow, and the event concludes with participants back in a circle, each given an opportunity to make a closing comment. An Open Space event can last half-a-day or as long as three days depending on the issues being considered.

As its name implies, Open Space has a very loose structure and relies on people taking their own responsibility for hosting conversations on subjects that matter to them. The interventions by the facilitator are very minimal. Their prime role is to “hold the space,” thereby allowing participants to enjoy the freedom to converse.

For more detailed guidance on how to host an Open Space, go to: http://openspaceworld.org/wp2

Reflect and Act

Reflect

• When did you last enjoy a good conversation? What made it good?
• How well do you listen to others? What practices will help you improve your listening?
• What benefits might conversing bring to a project you are currently involved in?
• How does conversing enable co-designing in your own experience?

Act

• Speak less in a meeting and spend more time actively listening.
• Find an opportunity to have a conversation then reflect afterwards on the experience.
• Craft a few questions that will spark a lively conversation with colleagues.
• Plan to host conversations using either World Café or Open Space as a process.

References

Berger, P. L., and T. Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Bushe, G. R., and R. J. Marshak. 2009. “Revisioning Organization Development Diagnostic and Dialogic Premises and Patterns of Practice.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 45, no. 3, pp. 348–68.

Bushe, G. R., and R. J. Marshak. 2015. Dialogic Organization Development: The Theory and Practice of Transformational Change. Oakland CA: Berrett-Kohler Publishers.

Jones, P. H. 2010. “On Modelling: The Language/Action Model of Conversation: Can Conversation Perform Acts of Design?” Interactions 17, no. 1, pp. 70–75.

Lewis, S., J. Passmore., and S. Cantore. 2016. Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management: Using AI to Facilitate Organizational Development. London, UK: Kogan Page.

Shaw, P. 2002. Changing Conversations in Organizations: A Complexity Approach to Change. London, UK: Psychology Press.

Stone, D., B. Patton, and S. Heen. 1999. Difficult Conversations. New York, NY: Viking.

Wheatley, M. 2009. Turning to One Another: Simple Conversations to Restore Hope to the Future. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.