2

What Kind of Conversations Are You Having?

The moment of questioning is also the moment of choice, which holds the greatest leverage for effective action and positive change.

– Marilee Goldberg

Conversation is a constant in our lives, whether it consists of our internal dialogue or our interactions with people. We all know these conversations affect us, but we may not realize how much influence they have on our well-being and our capacity to thrive. Not sure about that? Have you ever been in a great mood and having a really good day when a short interaction with someone turned the whole thing sour? Or perhaps you were having a lousy day and a simple conversation suddenly brightened your outlook. In their research, Jeff and Laurie Ford, authors of The Four Conversations, actually documented that “the type of conversation you have with the people around you has a profound impact on your experiences, relationships, and accomplishments.”¹

Conversations are almost like breathing. Much of the time, we are unaware of the nature of our conversations and their impact on our experience of being in relationship and in the world. It usually takes a significant (emotional) experience for us to actually step back and reflect on the nature of those conversations. Recall Elizabeth’s passion and commitment to the bank and how she felt that those who bought the bank would destroy it. She made a lot of assumptions about what kind of conversation she was going to have in that first meeting. She was stunned when her assumptions turned out to be the opposite of what happened.

The nature of our conversations is far more important than we know. After she got into university, Ming Li, the daughter of one of our colleagues, told her mother that as a child she loved having conversations with her. “I felt connected with you. You empowered me to think and contribute, and those times always stimulated new ideas for me,” she said. “They also made both of us feel hopeful and excited about the future. I remember going to school after an early-morning conversation about innovation and renewable energy. I was so motivated by what might be possible! How I might one day contribute to that change.” Now, as a young adult, Ming is initiating those kinds of conversations with her friends and professors while earning a degree in environmental engineering.

So, what is it that creates the kinds of conversations worth having? Let’s find out by looking at the nature of conversations in general. Conversations have two dimensions: (1) appreciative-depreciative and (2) inquiry-statement, as shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 The Nature of Conversations

The Appreciative–Depreciative Dimension

The first dimension describes the nature of our conversations as either appreciative (adding value) or depreciative (devaluing). Adding value to a situation, person, or opportunity can show up in a number of ways: sharing ideas, augmenting other people’s contributions, naming important factors, advocating for possible actions, acknowledging other people’s contributions, suggesting possibilities, pointing out opportunities, responding to questions with new perspectives, and contributing to planning—these are all appreciative ways we add value through conversations.

Engaging in such ways strengthens connections, enhances relationships, expands awareness, broadens and builds human potential, adds new knowledge, or moves us toward desired outcomes.² Think about times you’ve collaborated with others to develop creative solutions to a sticky problem or been publicly acknowledged for great work you’ve done. Remember how these conversations made you feel? Often conversations like these feel good and are energizing. The value-added goes beyond the positive emotions we experience. These conversations literally create an upward spiral of confidence and optimism.³ They stimulate meaningful engagement and inspire positive action.

By contrast, the depreciative dimension devalues a situation, person, or opportunity. This shows up in conversations when someone belittles other people’s ideas, criticizes others’ contributions, advocates for their own ideas without listening to others, continually points out reasons why things will not work, drives a singular focus, dominates the interactions without making room for others to speak, interrupts or cuts people off, ignores contributions, and complains. Engaging in ways that devalue others actually weakens connections, strains relationships, reinforces assumptions, eclipses human potential, limits possibility, and hinders movement toward desired outcomes. Think back on times you may have argued with someone you cared about or have been on the receiving end of criticism. Did you say things you didn’t mean or came to regret later? How did those conversations make you feel?

Depreciative conversations are often described as exhausting and can leave people with low energy, feeling alienated and drained. Research in the field of positive psychology has found that focusing on what is wrong or the negative in an effort to fix something actually narrows our thought repertoire, thereby restricting access to the skills and thinking capacity needed for creativity, critical thinking, and solution-finding.⁴ Depreciative conversations can smother creativity, resulting in decreased productivity and disengagement.

The Inquiry-Based and Statement-Based Dimension

In the second dimension, conversations are either inquiry-based or statement-based: We are either asking questions or making comments. Inquiry-based remarks are questions that aim to generate information; reveal hidden assumptions, perspectives, or knowledge; expand awareness; make room for the emergence of possibility or opportunity; deepen understanding; or initiate change. Questions that arise out of curiosity and genuine interest build relationships, connections, and awareness. Such questions add value and are appreciative in nature. Recall a conversation in which someone’s questions resulted in your feeling more connected to them or even more inspired to take action. What kinds of questions were asked?

On the other hand, questions can arise from a place of judgment or criticism. Such questions are often rhetorical or pejorative, devaluing people. They are depreciative in nature. Think back to a time when you or someone else asked questions that left you feeling disempowered or critiqued. What kinds of questions were asked in that situation?

Then there are statement-based interactions, made up of declarative statements. These comments can add value (affirmative statements) or can devalue (destructive statements). When statements are appreciative, people are saying positive things, responding to questions, and advocating in ways that contribute or point to important facts. Such conversations are valuable and have positive impact on people and situations. Statements that are depreciative in nature often show up as criticism, blame, and general negativity. The seeds of division are sown, leaving little to no room for learning and growth.

Combining these two dimensions—appreciative versus depreciative and inquiry-based versus statement-based—gives us a way to understand the nature of our conversations and their impact. It suggests there are four basic types of conversations or interactions:

1.   Conversations that add value through appreciative questions and dialogue: We call these Conversations Worth Having.

2.   Conversations that add value through appreciative comments and statements: We call these Affirmative Conversations. These are also worth having, to a point.

3.   Conversations that devalue through depreciative questions and defensive interactions: We call these Critical Conversations. These conversations may be worth having, also to a point.

4.   Conversations that devalue through depreciative comments and statements: We call these Destructive Conversations. These are not worth having.

At the heart of every conversation there is tone and direction: How is the conversation making us feel, and where is the conversation taking us? Many of us find ourselves stuck in conversations that are depreciative in nature. These drag us down and zap energy. Intentionally shifting our conversations to be appreciative and inquiry-based can transform our relationships and workplace outcomes. Think about conversations you’ve had with family members, friends, colleagues, or your boss. How did you feel after a conversation that you thought was worthwhile? After a critical conversation? A destructive conversation? Or, simply, an affirmative conversation? Which of those conversations had the greatest impact on your sense of well-being or helped you, your colleagues, or your team move forward?

When Kamal asked Elizabeth and Ram to come to his office at the bank to talk about their performance, he could have used several conversational options. The problem was taking too much time to open accounts and not opening enough new accounts. The tone and direction of the conversation would have been depreciative had he said, “We have a problem. Why is it taking you so long to open accounts? Why do you open so few accounts?” Instead, he stated the problem and reframed it by asking a generative question, inviting his staffers to pool their expertise and co-create a new process for opening accounts at the bank:

Elizabeth, you open the most accounts every month. Ram, you are faster than anyone else at opening accounts. Would you two be willing to work together to combine your areas of expertise to have the fastest, most efficient account opening process for the bank?

This created an appreciative tone that was inquiry-based, with positive direction. Such an approach contributed to Elizabeth’s and Ram’s motivation to succeed. Their conversation was productive because of that. The result helped them both to improve their productivity, while it also supported excellence for all account managers. Tone and direction influence our health, happiness, relationships, actions, and success in life.⁵ Our conversations are worthy of our care and attention. Let’s take a closer look at each of these four kinds of conversations and how they show up in our lives.

Conversations Worth Having

Paul put out a text to members of his team on Slack, a cloud-based collaboration application: “Just had a great conversation with @François!” François texted back, “Just took @paul up on offer to drop by Café Sauge Verte and had a fun conversation. He’s an interesting guy! I look forward to chatting with him again.”

When asked, “What made it a great conversation?” Paul replied, “We were both interested in growing the digital economy in our region, and that’s what stimulated our getting together. We didn’t know each other and we were wide open to learning new things. François has an interesting background, and, in asking about one another, I learned he has an unusual perspective on opportunities here. In general, I tend to focus on the differences that people bring rather than the similarities. I like that François doesn’t agree with me on everything and knows things that I don’t. I asked him what he’d like to see happen at a futures institute,⁶ and he came up with some ideas that had never crossed my mind. It got me thinking. When he asked why I asked that question, I shared my dream of creating satellite futures events throughout the region. Then we were off and running about possibilities. It was really worthwhile. It was stimulating, positive, and full of potential! And I got to know another techie in our community!”

What made it a conversation worth having was its appreciative tone and positive direction; it was both appreciative and inquiry-based in nature. Their genuine interest and openness to one another, which created room for each of them to add value to the conversation, made it appreciative. Generative questions were asked about one another’s experience and perspectives; this surfaced new ideas and possibilities. The tone was energetic and expansive. The direction spiraled upward as the two men learned about each other and generated possibilities together. Great conversations are generative; they allow for the creation of new images and metaphors, and they change how people think.⁷ We can recognize conversations worth having by their tone and direction. They are:

•   Meaningful

•   Mutually enlivening and engaging

•   Geared to generating information, knowledge, and possibility

•   Solution- or outcome-focused

•   Uplifting and energizing

•   Positive

•   Productive

The appreciative, inquiry-based conversation between Paul and François resulted in a new friendship, the surfacing of diverse perspectives and skills, the generation of ideas and possibilities, and the energy for moving forward.

We’ve all participated in conversations worth having, which by their nature are appreciative and inquiry-based interactions. They are typically rich and deep. You know you’re in a great conversation when you are energized and filled with positive emotions, images, and actions. Your thinking and creativity broaden and build. Your awareness expands and triggers insight. In the workplace, such conversations fuel productivity, performance, engagement, and satisfaction, all of which promise to support excellence.⁸ In communities, new futures are made possible. At home, such conversations create strong family bonds and support the potential of family members to thrive.⁹

Unfortunately, this is not the nature of many of the conversations we engage in day to day, nor is it the nature of most conversations being broadcast in the media. Too often, at home, at work, on social media, in the news, and in TV programming, we engage in or witness critical and destructive conversations. You might think, “Well, that’s just human nature.” But recall the impact of such conversations on the medical center’s ability to thrive. Over time, depreciative conversations destroy our sense of well-being and eclipse our potential to contribute. They negatively affect workplace engagement, team performance, productivity, and organization success. Furthermore, such conversations fray our relationships, deplete our energy, waste time, and depress our will to try, much less excel. Such conversations affect us physically, mentally, and emotionally, draining our potential for well-being.

If it is “just human nature” to focus on the negative or to be critical, some might say we should simply resign ourselves, even though we know that this depletes us across the board. On the other hand, we also know that human nature is adaptable and habits are flexible; so the best response is not resignation but intentionality. We can learn to shift our conversations. Before diving into how to do this, it is valuable to understand the nature of the other three kinds of conversations: critical, destructive, and affirmative.

Critical Conversations

The boss ordered the team into her office, and it was clear she was not happy. Stefan looked down and sighed as his shoulders slumped at the boss’s words. “Who the h!@*! submitted this to the Executive Committee?” she asked. “Does this look professional to any of you?” she snapped as she threw the ten-page report across her desk. Stefan had not thought it was ready to send, but she had demanded the report be sent no later than yesterday, and she would not entertain a conversation about a later date. As team lead, Stefan spoke up: “I told you it wasn’t ready, but you said to send it anyway.”

“Oh, so now it’s my fault?” she barked.

“I’m not saying it’s your fault, I’m just saying I tried to tell you we weren’t ready,” said Stefan.

“So why weren’t you ready? Is someone not pulling their load? This isn’t the first time your team has missed deadlines. Now the VPs are breathing down my neck, thinking we don’t have what it takes to do this job.”

“In all fairness,” Stefan said, defending himself and his team, “this is an exceptionally qualified team. As usual, we didn’t have the time or the equipment to move any faster in getting the results you wanted. We’re at the mercy of our equipment and the process. Once we get things set up, all we can do is wait.” The rest of the team was silent, staring at their feet and feeling uncomfortable. The boss dismissed them with a wave of her hand. “Get back to work, and let me know how soon you can get a professional report ready for me. This time I want to see it before it goes out!”

The tone and direction of this conversation are quite different from those of the previous one. The boss’s depreciative questions drained the energy out of the room. The conversation was a volley back and forth between defense and offense, attack and deflection. The interaction eclipsed any sharing of valuable information that might have generated productive solutions. It lowered morale among team members and added another brick to the wall between the boss and her employees. The team left the conversation knowing only that they didn’t live up to their boss’s expectations and yet not quite sure how to move forward. This conversation hindered creative possibilities for delivering on desired outcomes; it was a matter of starting over or waiting for the process to be completed.

We’ve all been part of such conversations, sometimes as the critic and sometimes as the one critiqued. Many times the critic does not see herself as being critical. In intimate relationships, critical-sounding conversations seem to be part of the territory. For example, a seemingly benign kitchen remark such as, “Sweetheart, why don’t you use just one pan? It will be so much easier and less work in the end” can launch a cascade of undesired results and friction. The person saying this is merely trying to be helpful. The other person, however, depending on past interactions, assumptions, and their own state of mind, can feel criticized and may snap back, “Why do I have to do it your way?”

Judgment and criticism lie at the core of a critical conversation. The person being asked the question(s) typically experiences a negative emotional response: defensiveness, fear, shame, unworthiness, anger, or disempowerment. Depreciative questions often reflect an unequal power dynamic (boss–subordinate, parent–child, teacher–student, more experience in the kitchen versus less experience in the kitchen), where the person being asked the question experiences being “one-down.” Such deficit-based questions negatively affect the mood and confidence of people.¹⁰ These kinds of interactions typically lead to disengagement and lowered productivity.

Occasionally, critical conversations can be valuable and productive. Examples of this abound in our organizations, schools, and families. Root-cause analysis, which is a problem-solving method for finding the root cause of a problem, can surface an easy fix. Critical feedback can motivate change, but it will not sustain it. Arguments between couples can bring issues out in the open that need to be aired. All of these are examples of critical conversations with positive outcomes. Usually, getting to that outcome does not feel good, though the outcome is nonetheless positive.

Critical conversations have the ability to be effective when balanced with strong relationships that have formed as a result of predominantly appreciative conversations. Research shows that the best results for teams and relationships stem from a 6:1 relationship (six positives to one negative).¹¹ Over time, if critical conversations dominate the conversational landscape, they eventually weaken relationships, limit potential, and eclipse generativity. In effect, they become destructive conversations. When the ratio falls below 3:1, things begin to fall apart.¹²

Destructive Conversations

Shane and Jean-Luc were standing around the coffee machine. “If I have to listen to Claudia talk about her sales goals one more time, I’m gonna hit something,” said Shane in exasperation. “I know what you mean,” added Jean-Luc. “She’s so oblivious to how she makes the rest of us feel.”

“Yeah, well, she didn’t get all those sales on her own. I’ll bet the manager steers some of them her way. You’ve seen how they look at each other, haven’t you?” Shane insinuated.

“Whoa, I didn’t know that! That’s not fair,” fumed Jean-Luc. “That annoys me. To think I have to put together a proposal with her tomorrow! I will have to be careful with her and keep my cards close to my chest. She’ll probably make me do all the work, and then she’ll take all the credit.”

You can see where this conversation is going, and also how it will influence Jean-Luc’s ability to work with Claudia the next day. This is a destructive conversation with no chance of a positive outcome. It creates or reinforces differential power dynamics, generates a negative tone, and creates roadblocks for progress toward desired outcomes. The conversation is full of statements that devalue Claudia, her work, and the manager. Without her even being present, the relationship between Claudia and her two colleagues has been fractured. Jean-Luc has been set up to anticipate a negative interaction in which he loses. Unless Jean-Luc realizes the destructive nature of his conversation with Shane, his interaction with Claudia the next day is likely to be critical or destructive. There is little chance they will have a highly productive and meaningful engagement.

For those in an intimate relationship, a critical or passive-aggressive question such as “Why do you always have to leave your stuff lying around?” can trigger a destructive conversation between partners: “You are such a nag!” “I wouldn’t have to nag if you’d put your stuff away!” “It’s my house, too, and I like my stuff where it is! You are such a control freak!” “I’m not trying to control, I just like a house that’s clean and neat. It’s better feng shui; energy gets caught up in clutter.” Rolling his eyes, “Oh jeez, now it’s feng shui!”

This couple is talking past one another—full of judgment and criticism, denying one another’s value in the process. The conversation is loaded with blame, name-calling, and fault-finding, which then trigger attack-and-defend stances. Not only are such conversations not worth having, they are toxic. They destroy both relationships and the potential for excellence. When such conversations are the norm, they are actually predictive of low-performance teams and even divorce.¹³

You can tell you are in a destructive conversation because it drains life and energy from those involved. It spirals downward, augmenting negative feelings. People on the receiving end do not feel valued and do not contribute value. No one feels good about the dynamic. Once defensiveness is triggered, statements become reactionary, fueled by negative emotions that tear down and narrow both creativity and critical thinking. Relationships grow more and more strained, and over time trust erodes. Just as they did at the medical center, such conversations create a toxic environment. Such a climate results in lower productivity, disengagement, dissatisfaction, and loss of connection. If the situation continues, relationships disintegrate. Organization teams fail to perform well. Employees mentally check out, quit, or form cliques that generate divisiveness. Families can even fall apart. These destructive conversations often take the form of any of the following:

•   General deficit-based narrative: blaming, disempowering, claiming authority, or otherwise minimizing the worth of others

•   Arguing or debating, without listening to one another

•   Bullying

•   Commanding and controlling

•   Strict advocacy, with no inquiry into what others are thinking

The tone of destructive conversations feels bad and stimulates negative emotions. The direction often sits in spin cycle, going nowhere. Instead, the negative tone amplifies. Almost the opposite is true of the fourth and final type of interaction: the Affirmative Conversation.

Affirmative Conversations

A high school teacher affirms, “Samantha and Tamir, you’ve done an excellent job on your project! It’s clear you both put in a great deal of time, and you met the criteria for earning an A. I would like you to present your project to the class tomorrow.”

“Thanks,” said Samantha and Tamir in unison. “You helped us a lot; we could never have done such a good job without all your support,” added Tamir.

“Well, that’s what I’m here for,” the teacher replied. “All I did was give some suggestions and leads on where to look for things. You both did all the hard work and put it together in such a polished final product. You should be very proud of your work!”

What are you doing with your words?

This is one form of affirmative conversation. The tone augments positive emotions and good feelings, yet it is non-directional. The impact it has on the emotions can nonetheless inspire forward movement and motivate positive action. Another form of affirmative conversation is mutual advocacy: You share your ideas and others share theirs. Such conversations typically transition into one of the other types of conversations. If debate, criticism, and argument arise, you’ve moved into a destructive interaction. By contrast, a conversation worth having emerges if people in that conversation seem genuinely curious about one another’s points of view or how their ideas might come together. As soon as questions are asked that generate new knowledge or invite creativity, the interaction becomes a conversation worth having. Affirmative conversations center on the following:

•   Genuine (mutual) admiration

•   Acknowledgement

•   Feedforward¹⁴

•   Motivation/encouragement

•   Positive advocacy

The difference between a conversation worth having and an affirmative conversation is palpable. The latter, like the one Samantha and Tamir had with their teacher, simply feels good. It reinforces positive relationships and encourages excellence. Yet it lacks the vibrancy and dynamic energy of a conversation worth having. Engaging in affirmative conversations is important because they foster a climate that favors potential and creativity. On their own, however, these conversations are not sufficient to generate new knowledge or innovation.

Over time, engaging in affirmative conversations may be experienced simply as “being nice.” Without generative questions being asked, affirmative conversations can result in a friendly but superficial environment where no real learning and growth take place. We may like and appreciate one another after such conversations, but we really don’t achieve the same depth of relationship or find possibilities for the future that develop when we inquire deeply together.

Excessive or insincere affirmative conversations backfire. Inauthentic appreciation can create a toxic environment over time. These interactions may show up as “talking nice” to someone’s face while making negative comments behind their back, or using affirmation and praise to gain something of value only for oneself. Such expressions and manipulations become self-evident to everyone involved, except perhaps the person perpetrating them. Over time, these are experienced as destructive conversations.

Take a few minutes and think about times you have been engaged in each of these types of conversations in your personal and professional life. Where did your conversations take you (direction), and how did they feel (tone)? Those two questions are key indicators of the kind of conversation you are having. In the next chapter, as promised, we will introduce you to two simple AI practices that will allow you to intentionally fuel productive and meaningful engagement.