Welcome, everybody. Here's what I'd love to know—if you can just think with me for a moment. I have some questions I want to ask you. First, who here believes they know how to have a conversation? Just think about that.
Now, you might be wondering if you really do know, since I'm asking the question. Let's dig a little deeper. Have you ever thought you were showing up for a conversation, but instead, you got yelled at? Or maybe you thought you were having a discussion, but everyone was multitasking on their phones or another device? Perhaps you've experienced a conversation where one person spoke the entire time, and you never had a voice in it at all.
George Bernard Shaw sums it up well when he says, "The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place." A lot of times, we think we are communicating when we are actually doing something else entirely.
I want to explore the different kinds of conversations we have and look metaphorically at how they can be broken down, based on some work by Bill Isaacs.
The first type is monologue. Monologue is a single voice—it’s turn-taking, where one person says everything they want before allowing another to speak. It’s like downloading information onto others.
Next is debate. Debate is about advocacy, where one side tries to persuade, convince, or even beat down the other. It’s about winning and losing, rather than understanding.
Then there’s discussion. The word "discussion" actually means "to break apart." It often feels like a game of table tennis, where ideas are pulled apart, lobbed back and forth.
Beyond that, we have skillful conversation. This is where inquiry enters the picture—it’s like plowing a field, sticking with a topic long enough to understand what’s beneath the surface. People ask questions and engage in deeper understanding.
Finally, there’s dialogue. Dialogue is like a pool of meaning, where everyone contributes equally. There are no specific sides, no predetermined outcomes. Instead, new ideas emerge from the conversation itself.
The reason I want to talk to you about conversations—the art and science of them—is because I believe conversations are the single greatest predictor of success. Whether we are having them or not, and how we engage in them, determines our ability to navigate challenges. If we learn to be intentional about how we invite, cultivate, and facilitate dialogue, I truly believe there is no challenge or initiative an organization cannot skillfully navigate.
The act of engaging in skillful conversation is the key to collective intelligence and culture change. But beneath this, there is significant mindset work that must happen to reap the full benefits. In fact, I work with organizations that typically spend one to two years putting these concepts into practice, because they require continuous effort.
Today, we will focus on the nuts and bolts of conversations—how they work structurally—so you can fully understand dialogue and start thinking about it differently.
Dialogue is how we access collective intelligence. Without it, we cannot change culture. We cannot achieve agility. We cannot solve complex issues in organizations—issues that demand higher performance, innovation, or the ability to anticipate change. The solutions to these challenges do not emerge from tools, processes, or frameworks. They emerge from dialogue.
As an executive coach working with leaders and teams, I frequently observe conversations that derail meetings, leaders talking at their teams rather than with them, teams in "breakdown" blaming a single person, disengaged employees who have given up on collaboration, and even teams that claim to be a happy family—at the cost of real work getting done.
These patterns are common, yet they directly inhibit collective intelligence and prevent teams from creating the change they seek. Being able to engage in meaningful dialogue is the first step to change.
The most important role of a leader, especially in the context of agility, is to create an environment that supports more dialogue and less monologue and debate. I have seen firsthand how leadership teams can create palpable culture shifts simply by changing the nature of their conversations.
The first step to fostering dialogue is understanding how conversations work. Conversations have structure, and that structure determines their performance—just as the structure of a riverbed determines the flow of water. Every sentence we say can be categorized into four speech actions:
- Move: Initiates direction in the conversation, proposing new ideas.
- Follow: Supports or builds upon an idea.
- Oppose: Pushes back, challenges, or provides alternatives.
- Bystand: Bridges ideas, offers neutral perspectives, or asks inquiries.
For a conversation to be effective, all four actions must be present. Advocacy (move and oppose) must be balanced with inquiry (follow and bystand).
For example, in a simple conversation about meeting for coffee:
- "Let’s meet for coffee next week." (Move)
- "Next week is out for me." (Oppose)
- "What about the following week?" (Move)
- "Sure, that works for me." (Follow)
- "Where would you like to go?" (Bystand)
- "Let’s go to the coffee shop on the corner." (Move)
So here’s my challenge for you:
- Set an intention—choose whether you are engaging in monologue or dialogue.
- Observe and incorporate all four speech actions in your conversations.
- Create space for true dialogue, where real understanding can emerge.
Dialogue is based on the belief that humans create, refine, and share knowledge through conversation. To illustrate this, let me share a tale of two companies.
Both companies experienced a crisis—a public scandal covered by the media. Company A publicly took responsibility and turned inward to listen. Executives cleared their calendars to hold listening sessions. Company B, on the other hand, publicly defended themselves and hired consultants to draft new policies.
The difference? Company A built trust, evolved its leadership, and transformed its culture. Company B returned to old habits and remains stuck in dysfunction. The key difference was dialogue.
Leadership often follows the belief that being decisive, authoritative, and action-oriented is the only way. But sometimes, the most powerful leadership move is simply to listen.
So, I leave you with this:
- Stay in the breakdown. Don’t turn away from difficult conversations.
- Create space for opposition—otherwise, it will surface in unproductive ways.
- Listening and inquiry are more valuable than having all the answers.
- Being authentic and vulnerable attracts trust and engagement.
- Never assume people will speak up; you must invite and cultivate dialogue.
Dialogue is the foundation for agility. Leadership is not about what happens—because things will always happen. It is about how you choose to respond. And I believe this is a call for cultivating true collective intelligence.