conversation matters

A-Space (Facebook-like) Is Making a Difference Across the U.S. Intelligence Community

I'm posting the Executive Summary of a study I conducted with the Defense Intelligence Agency. You can read the full study - all 30 fascinating pages here.

Executive Summary of How A-Space is Shaping Analysts' Work

This report provides an overview of an exploratory scientific, qualitative study conducted by the Defense Intelligence Agency’s (DIA) Knowledge Laboratory in April- June of 2009. The ethnographic study based on twenty in-depth interviews with analysts identifies how analysts are using A-Space and what impact that use is having on their analytic work within DIA’s Directorate for Analysis (DI).

The primary benefit that A-Space brings to analytic work is a venue for seamlessly incorporating cognitive diversity to address complex analytic issues. Research indicates that cognitive diversity, (e.g. different perspectives, interpretations, heuristics, and predictive models) when applied to complex problems, consistently results in more and better solutions.

• A-Space is an environment in which analysts collaboratively create new meaning out of the diverse ideas and perspectives they collectively bring to an issue. Through this collaboration, analysts have the potential to break through long held assumptions to provide new ways of thinking about complex problems.

Analysts talk about A-Space as a setting where they are able to test out ideas and theories. Analysts, faced with a stream of data from a multitude of sources have the task of finding patterns in that data that will be useful to decision makers. Sensemaking is the term used for that human ability to make meaning out of a stream of seemingly unrelated information. It requires creating hypotheses and testing them against the data and interpretations of others. And conversation, with analysts who have diverse perspectives, is the most effective means to engage in the testing and revision of hypotheses. The peer-to-peer environment of A-Space provides a conversational format to engage in joint sensemaking, which may be the most significant function of A-Space in terms of being a human intellectual force multiplier. As analysts experience the benefits of on-line sensemaking conversations, over time, such conversations could become more prominent in the everyday discourse of analysts.

• Networked relationships on A-Space provide a stream of cognitively diverse information without the costly time investment that maintaining strong ties requires

Networking is highly valued by analysts because it provides access to new ideas and diverse perspectives. However maintaining networked relationships is a time consuming activity. The time cost limits the number of relationships an analyst can invest in. The most productive network relationships for gaining unique or novel ideas are not the close relationships among an analyst’s teammates (what sociologists call strong ties) because team/division members tend to have redundant knowledge. Rather the best source of new perspectives and ideas are colleagues in other directorates or agencies who have access to information from totally different sources or provide unique perspectives or interpretation of the existing data. But these more distant relationships (called weak ties) are the most costly to maintain because they require a planned interaction by phone/email/in-person. A-Space, however, reduces the time-cost of maintaining weak ties by providing analysts a way to establish and maintain relationships through frequent on-line interaction in an informal, peer-to-peer culture of mutual trust. A-Space also greatly increases the number of distant network members an analyst can interact with, again without increasing the time cost.

• A-Space is reinforcing the value of asking questions of colleagues, providing analysts the means to uncover flaws in their own data and reasoning

When analysts ask a question on A-Space they are making a tacit acknowledgement that, even if considered the expert on their topic, other analysts have perspectives and data that can add to their line of reasoning or uncover faults in that reasoning. This willingness to be shown to be wrong – to overcome the natural tendency to only seek confirmation - is facilitated by a culture of openness that analysts themselves have developed on A-Space. Through the on-line interaction, counterparts within and between agencies are coming to know each other as valued colleagues. There is a growing sense of trust and a willingness both to help and to receive help from each other.

• A-Space is providing analysts a set of new practices to: 1) build cross agency networks, 2) gain situational awareness, and 3) hold discussions of interpretation, that operate in parallel with the normal production process. These new practices constitute an emerging model that provides a level of cognitive diversity not previously available.

Analysts appear to be making use of A-Space for practices that were either not available or were very difficult to accomplish before A-Space was accessible – practices such as cross agency networking, situational awareness, discussions, and making available highly classified team products. However, practices like co-authoring and coordinating products, which are part of the normal production process are only rarely conducted through A-Space, even though the functionality is available to do so. Thus two models, operating in parallel, appear to be emerging. The challenge for analysts will be to merge these two models over time - bringing greater cognitive diversity into the normal production process and moving co-authoring and coordination more fully into A-Space.

• The non-hierarchal nature of A-Space, results in analysts feeling that it is okay to offer their thinking even if it is not completely formed or thought through, increasing the speed of product development by eliminating faulty hypotheses early on and quickly settling on those that are viable.

A-Space provides the means to test ideas and theories against knowledgeable others and to do so early in the formulation process. Early testing saves both time and effort that would have been spent on those ideas that do not measure up, and it lends support and expanded rationale for those that do. As valuable as offering thinking early on in the process is, it requires a safe environment in which to risk that thinking. A-Space provides such an environment by being peer- to-peer rather than hierarchal. Research indicates that peer-to-peer conversations are consistently more open and trusting than those that involve hierarchy. Discussions on A-Space can be vigorous and critical without being judgmental in tone. The informality of the language and the friendly banter create the feel of a conversation among equals.

Bringing the Flow of Knowledge to a Standstill by Speaking with Conviction

One type of work I do with organizations is to analyze how organizational members talk to each other in ways that encourage or prevent knowledge from flowing between them.

One way of talking that inhibits the exchange of knowledge is speaking with conviction. That may seem contrary to what we’ve all learned in communication and leadership workshops, where one of the lessons often taught is to speak with confidence- “sound like you mean it”. Yet, as I examine conversations in the work setting, stating an idea with conviction tends to send a signal to others that the speaker is closed to new ideas. When speaking with conviction people sound as though no other idea is possible, as though the answer is, or should be, obvious. For example:

“Look I’ve spent years studying Iran and I know that they will not be a threat to our military efforts in Iraq.”

This statement came from a “case”* written by the listener, not the speaker. When the listener heard this remark, his immediate reaction was, “He’s closed to any other point of view, I may as well save my breath.” and so gave up without further explaining his own perspective on the Iran/Iraq issue. Although a great deal of the meaning in this speaker’s remark came from the tone of voice used, even without hearing that tone, the choice of words and the format of the sentence effectively carry the message that he is uninterested in any other perspective than his own. For example, he started the sentence with “Look” which we tend to use to express exasperation; his claim that, “I’ve spent years studying Iran” is a jab at the listener’s lesser experience; the term, “I know” signals that this topic is not up for question.

When we’re in the midst of a conversation we can’t stop to examine every word, as I just did, to think about whether it sends the right signal. So trying to change the words people choose is not a good place to start if we want to help people bring more knowledge into their conversations. Rather, the place for the change to start is with the thinking behind the language. The words we choose are, after all, a reflection of how we think about an issue. The thinking behind the brief statement the speaker makes about Iran is that, “This is truth.”

David Bohm*, the great physicist and proponent of dialogue says,
“We have to have enough faith in our world-view to work from it, but not that much faith that we think it’s the final answer.” P. 4*

That would have been great advice for the speaker in the example. Neither people in general, nor this speaker in particular, can function effectively without reaching conclusions and using those conclusions to guide our actions – to do otherwise would leave us immobilized by indecision. But it is also true that we are unable to learn unless we stay open to the possibility that a conclusion we’ve drawn may not be correct or that circumstances may have changed.

What our speaker needs is to change his thinking from certainty to a willingness to entertain other possibilities - a change that is necessary if any conversation is to produce new thinking and learning. Bohm puts it this way, “Ideas must be vulnerable.”

If we were to put the speaker on the spot and ask him if there was even the remotest possibility that he could be wrong about Iran or that some data might be available to the listener of which he was unaware, the speaker would undoubtedly acknowledge that there is always room for doubt. Yet in the midst of a discussion, especially when trying to “win a point”, there is a great inclination to make categorical statements and then, having made them, feel obliged to defend them.

If our speaker could agree, at least in principle, that “there is always a possibility” then he would be able to act his way into a change in thinking – to “act as if.” William James said, “If you want a quality, act as if you already had it.”

So the question is, if I am really certain about something, how do I act as if I’m open to other possibilities, that is, without coming off as phony?

One of the very useful ways of acting out that belief of possibility is “perspective taking.” Perspective taking, according to researchers Johnson and Johnson* is “An active and non-evaluative attempt to understand the perspective and information of another person.” But it involves more than just carefully listening to another person’s explanation, perspective taking requires giving voice to the other’s perspective - articulating both the conclusions and the reasoning of the other person. (This is related to the idea that We Learn When We Talk)

To take another’s perspective does not imply agreement with it, but rather it's like trying the idea on for size. When I put on the “coat” how does it feel? What do I understand from this perspective that I could not see from my own?

Perspective taking is an action that produces some remarkable conversational results. That is particularly true when a team is working together on a problem. The value add of a team, over individual problem solving, is the variety of perspectives from which a problem may be approached. The conversational goal then, is to make sure all of those perspectives are not only heard, but also fully comprehended by the group.

Johnson and Johnson say, “In order to create a synthesis based on the best reasoning and information by everyone involved, individuals must, a) actively attempt to understand both the content and the information being presented and the cognitive and affective frames–of-reference of the person presenting the information and b) be able to hold both their own and other people’s perspectives in mind at the same time.” Being able to hold two disparate ideas in mind at the same time enables synthesis and can even engender an altogether new way of thinking about an issue.

Johnson and Johnson’s research shows that when individuals are competent in taking others’ perspective:
• more information is disclosed than occurs when each person simply makes a case for his or her own perspective
• communication is facilitated because the re-statement of others’ perspectives tends to make a complex idea more easily understood
• the information and reasoning of others are retained longer
• the results are more creative and higher quality solutions and more accurate problem solving.

Perspective taking does not require a person, like the speaker in our earlier example, to stop doing something; rather it asks the speaker to do something different – always an easier task. Moreover, perspective taking is not something that has to be learned. Children start to be able to put themselves in another’s shoes around five years of age. Before that, of course, they are amazingly egocentric. To take another's perspective does not take extensive training; it has only to be exercised.

So here’s the challenge, the next time someone suggests an idea that seems utterly preposterous to you, try perspective taking. Then see what results you get. What ever the results, you are likely to come away with new knowledge.

• Cases of actual conversations using Argyris’ right and left hand column format
• Bohm, D. in (1985). Unfolding meaning: A weekend of dialogue with David Bohm. Ark Paperbacks. P. 4.
• Johnson, DW and Johnson, RT, 1989 Cooperation and Competition, Theory and Research. Interaction Book Company

What Do We Get From Conversation That We Can't Get Any Other Way?

This is an intriguing question because each time we think about contacting someone for help on an issue we face a choice; Do I email, phone, walk down the hall, twitter, text message, post on the community website?

This post is about the benefits of choosing to have a conversation* through what ever medium we select.

The greatest benefit is that with conversation we get “more than an answer.” That’s the title of a great article by Rob Cross and Lee Sproull. They did a study in 2004 that looked at the benefits that accrued to people who had a conversation with a colleague about a relatively ambiguous issue each was facing. These seekers were project managers in a large consulting firm. They had access to first-rate company repositories of best practices, case examples, reusable work products, methodologies and tools, discussion forums and expertise databases. In spite of such tools, overwhelmingly they preferred to take the issue they were wrestling with to a colleague.

Cross and Sproull conducted in-depth interviews with each of these project managers to explore what they learned through the conversations they chose to have. Then they sorted the responses into five categories, which I outline here. I’ve also embedded my own thinking related to the categories- so they are not pure Cross and Sproull.

Answers: Not surprisingly the seekers got answers to the questions they asked. Some of the answers were factual in nature. But more often what was asked for and received was procedural or methodology based. The seekers were looking for the application of facts or principles in order to develop a solution.

Meta Knowledge: This category was about where to go to get more information on the issue, or conversely where not to go because a certain report was out-dated, or superficial. Also in this category was the identification of specific work products and the names of other people who could be helpful, along with an introduction.

Meta knowledge is incredibly useful, but only if the source knows enough about the issues the seeker is facing to sort through possibilities based on 1) the seeker’s level of expertise (absorpative capacity) and 2) the applicability of the meta knowledge to the seeker’s specific situation.

Problem Reformulation: This occurred when the source suggested a different way to look at the problem or issue, a way that might even invalidate the original question. It tended to broaden the thinking of the seeker or approach it from an entirely different angle. Also in this category was helping the seeker become aware of potential unforeseen consequences of specific actions as well as increasing awareness of issues that were likely to be particularly sensitive.

To gain meta-knowledge and/or problem-reformulation requires the source to be willing “to understand the problem as experienced by the seeker and then shape her/his knowledge to the evolving definition of the problem” and is best served by the give and take of conversation. And as Cross and Sproull point out, to provide meta knowledge also demands a strong enough tie with the source so that he or she is willing to invest the necessary time in the seeker’s issue.

Validation: This is assurance that the approach the seeker is taking is on course. And it is the expression of appreciation for the seeker’s thinking behind his or her planning. Validation builds seekers confidence and allows them to move forward with greater certainty and perhaps even be more self-assured when approaching a client. Validation also provides seekers the certainty that they have done enough background work, saving the seeker the time it would take to gather further data.

Validation has an emotive content that comes across most fully through the facial and tonal cues we pick up in face-to-face conversations. Like most feedback, validation provides greater assurance when it references specifics rather than generalities. For example, “Great plan” is less validating than is, “The logic of your argument is well sequenced which adds to its face validity”. But to offer that level of specificity takes in-depth understanding on the part of the source.

Legitimizing: Legitimizing is the expression of approval by a person in authority or with known expertise, which the seeker can then use to influence others. As with validation, legitimizing can save the seeker time by reducing the amount of proof or data that may need to be collected before the client is willing to act. It also serves to head off arguments others might raise.

The greatest benefit of conversation is that it produces five categories of responses, not just the answer. We get so much more from conversation, e.g. an unexpected insight, a sense of affirmation that inspires us to new heights or, equally useful, having to confront a realization that we've been trying to avoid; deepening the relationship with a colleague or the introduction to a collaborator we would never have discovered on our own; and on and on.

The multiplicity of benefits addresses the very real problem of not knowing what we don’t know. A problem that is so frequent when the issues we are addressing are ambiguous and complex.

I don’t think we enter into conversations expecting so many outcomes. Rather I think we come with a goal or question in mind and the rest emerges out of the interaction of the conversation. And that interaction is impacted by the nature of the relationship between the seeker and source. The source has to be willing to engage with the seeker to understand the issues; the seeker has to put him or herself in the vulnerable position of asking for help. On both parts that willingness requires a relationship of trust and respect. Paradoxically, in-depth conversations also serve to strengthen just that kind of relationship.

Imagine how much knowledge we would gain if we did enter every conversation anticipating that we would gain "more than an answer."

The published version is at: Cross, R. & Sproull, L. (2004). More Than an Answer: Information Relationships for Actionable Knowledge. Organization Science. 15(4): pp. 446-462. Click here for an earlier draft

* Conversation being defined as: the interaction that occurs when each person is actively working to understand the meaning the other is trying to convey.

Four Conversations to Address Adaptive Challenges

Trish Silber coauthored this post with me

When organizations face adaptive challenges that are complex and unpredictable, the people who have ideas vital to dealing with the issues are those whose work is impacted by the challenge. They know the subtleties of the process and hold the tacit knowledge of how it works and therefore how it will have to be adapted or reinvented to meet the new realities. The leader’s task, when faced with such a challenge, is not to make sense of it for that group, rather it’s to create a forum where it’s possible for those involved in the work to do the sensemaking for themselves. No one can make sense for someone else.

There are four types of conversations that are broadly applicable to any situation, and that are especially necessary for harnessing a group’s thinking during adaptive challenges: 1) conversations for relationship-building, 2) conversations for mutual understanding, 3) conversations for possibilities, and 4) conversations for action.

We are using the term “conversation” to mean,

the interaction that occurs when each person is actively working to understand the meaning the other is trying to convey.

Although each of us can recall times when we’ve engaged in that kind of mutual and authentic exchange, it only rarely happens inside of organizations. Organizational meetings too often seem to be opportunities for each person to make declarative and politic statements about their own position, with little interest in trying to understand the meaning others intend to convey. To convene a conversation rather than the typical meeting requires that the leader act as a conversation architect. The first task of the leader/architect is to determine which type of conversation is required at any particular juncture.

Conversations for Relationship-Building

Until those invited into the conversation have built a sense of psychological safety with each other, serious work on the issue will not take place. Rather people will tend to speak in general terms, rely on clichés, give voice only to what it seems safe to say and withhold any information that might possibly embarrass themselves or others. In other words, only a small part of the knowledge available in the room will be spoken. To break through that caution, the leader/convener has to create the opportunity for people to learn about each other – a relationship-building conversation.

In this context, a relationship-building conversation is often a conversation about the meaning of the task or work for those brought together in conversation. The question the leader poses to the group to initiate such a conversation, draws on the adaptive challenge, rather than being in the nature of an icebreaker. For example, if the challenge is about the difficulty of teams working virtually, each person might be asked to describe a time when they felt most effective as a part of a team. Such a question allows others to hear about what is valued or important to that individual. Through these conversations, held as a series of small groups, members discover their mutual interests and identify areas of expertise and experience. In this way a relationship of trust and mutual respect is built, and the group establishes a sound understanding of the assets and resources it brings the adaptive challenge.

Conversations for Mutual Understanding

Conversations for Mutual Understanding are the conversations we hold to make sense of what we know – to create meaning out of a mess of unstructured data and information. That involves exploring and uncovering each other’s perspectives, reasoning, and ideas about the topic. Weick* says

“...the same event means different things to different people, and more information will not help them. What will help them is a setting where they can argue, using rich data pulled from a variety of media, to construct fresh frameworks of action-outcome linkages that include their multiple interpretations. The variety of data needed to pull off this difficult task are most available in variants of the face to face meeting.”

The Conversation for Mutual Understanding is required before individuals can align, decide, and coordinate effectively. COL Lee Shiang Long, Head of Joint Communication and Information Systems Department (JCISD) for the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), describes a practice that senior leadership use consistently. Two conversations are held, often in two different settings. The first of the two is held in the form of planning seminars and workshops for mutual understanding. Here the officers are trying to understand the situation, not to persuade others to their point of view. Everyone in this conversation speaks as an equal in trying to make sense of he complexity. Subsequently, a second meeting is held in the form of decision forums, where decisions are made about the issue under discussion. The physical separation of the two meetings ensures that one does not spill over into the other. Without such separation it is all too easy for a group to move towards a decision before all the valid information is considered.

As Abigail Adams said long ago, “Learning is not attained by chance, it must be sought for with ardor and attended with diligence.”

Conversations for Possibilities

By their very nature, adaptive challenges require learning and innovation for resolution. Conversations for Possibilities are those conversations in which we release ourselves to create and innovate, opening up pathways to a future beyond what already exists, rather than a perpetuation of the past. These are forward-focused, transformational conversations that must eventually root themselves in reality, but not before we’ve entertained scenarios unfettered by our current assumptions. At the essence of these conversations is the belief that creativity is a conversational phenomenon, not dependent upon a few inherently creative individuals.

The best Conversations for Possibilities are those in which the group:

- has a common understanding of a minimal set of givens and non-negotiables so that their conversation has necessary boundaries;

- entertains ideas of various scale, allowing the possibility of small moves creating big impacts;

- has enough time to conduct multiple rounds of idea generation, which creates richer ground for true assumption-busting, innovation, and learning. Mark Twain had it right when he said, “If you want to have a good idea, have a lot of them.”

Conversations for possibilities require deliberate pre-planning that prepares people to step out of their current interpretations, constraints, and bias for action. That pre-planning may include an ethnographic look at the present reality, scanning the external environment for trends and new ideas, or posing powerful questions of participants for reflection. Goldberg* suggests that “a paradigm shift occurs when a question is asked inside the current paradigm that can only be answered from outside it.”

Conversations for Action

Conversations for Action generate decisions, commitments, and coordinated actions with others. They are the most frequent conversations held in organizations. In fact they are often the only type of conversation held - the default conversation.

Conversations for Action may include discussions of feasibility; establishment of deadlines; requests and offers between individuals or groups; specific commitments; decisions and measures of success; and how fine-tuning a decision will happen. The wealth of action planning and decision making tools available speaks to our struggle to be as explicit and structured as this conversation usually requires.

In fact these conversations often fall short because the commitment or decision is not clear or publicly owned by a group or individual. A nod of the head in agreement is one thing, but publicly acknowledging the actions each member will take to support the group decision helps to move the group from lip service that too often occurs, to considered thinking about what it will take to make it happen.

• Goldberg, M. The Art of the Question, 1998, Wiley.
• Weick, K. Sensemaking in Organizations 1995, Sage.
• The title headings of “Conversations for Possibilities” and “Conversations for Action” are reflective of Fernando Flores work

A Rant on Report Outs

In the entire world, there is nothing so boring as a report out at the end of a small group discussion. Now, I’m all for small group discussions. They are both necessary and useful - we need more small group discussions. But report outs should be abolished.

The value of a small group discussion is in the discussion. It gives the members of the group an opportunity to hear other view points, to learn from the articulation of one’s own view (see We Learn When We Talk) and to build or deepen relationships with others. None of those reasons require a report out.

As far back as I can remember, I’ve never learned anything useful from a report out. Here’s a typical one – see if it’s familiar. When it’s his turn, the self-appointed reporter of the small group starts,

“In our group we talked about maturity, growth, and development. We all agreed that you need to define a clear goal to work toward, but you also need to stay flexible so that you can adapt to changes in the environment. Without a clear goal you can’t measure progress and without measures you don’t know if you are reaching the goal. Measuring is critically important. In my company we use a dashboard, red, yellow and green. The green means you are on target, everything is fine and there is no need for action. Yellow means ….(you can guess the rest as the reporter continues). 


Let’s examine what is learned from that report out. First, we learn what topics were covered. That would be helpful if we learned anything about the thinking behind these topics, but the typical cryptic phrase or single word does little to inform us. Take “Growth” for example, Growth at the expense of quality? How much growth? Are their limits to growth? We learn nothing from a list of topics or cryptic phrases.

Secondly, the one topic that is elaborated, clear goals, is so couched in generalities that it is useless. None of us would question that having a clear goal to work toward is helpful. But is this comment insightful? Is it news to anyone? No! How is it helpful to report out generalities that everyone already knows?

I’ve sat through so many report outs that I consider myself something of a connoisseur. (I was once in a meeting in which 20 groups reported out, one after the other – it was deadly. We were cautioned to keep it to no more than 5 minutes - but that is an hour and a half! We reported out longer than the small group discussion!). That aside, based on years of experience I’ve been able to classify all small group reporters into two broad categories, The Cataloger and the Ego Centric.

The cataloger feels duty bound to report out every idea that any one raised during the small group discussion, no matter how mundane. The cataloger usually ends this recitation by turning to the group and asking, “Did I leave anything out?” Which unfortunately, opens the gate for yet more trivial items. 


The Ego Centric, on the other hand, reports out on his own ideas disregarding anything the group said. Group members listen in puzzlement to this recitation thinking, “I don’t remember discussing that!” My example above tends toward the Ego Centric with the reporter’s speech on what the dashboards they use in his company. 


There is, however, an option to report outs – POPCORN! Here’s how it works. When the small group discussion time is over the facilitator gets the group’s attention. Then she says, “Let me give you a minute to reflect on the discussion you’ve just had. Think about what stood out for you.” And then the facilitator actually quits talking for a whole minute! Then the facilitator says, “I’m interested in hearing a few comments. What stuck with you?” Then the popcorn begins. Not right away of course, you have to wait a bit before the corn begins to pop. But within a minute someone raises their hand and the popping begins.

There are several valuable learning outcomes that are achieved when you do POPCORN, that just don’t happen with report outs.

1) The facilitator asks for what was learned not what was said – and actually gives the participants time to reflect on that. What I learned is so much more insightful than what was said. There are a dozen questions that could be asked, “What stood out for you?”; “What was new for you in the discussion?”; “What did you learn that you didn’t know before? – all focus on what was unique or significant to you personally.


2) Participants are responsible only for speaking their own thoughts. Participants can be a great deal more accurate, not to mention shorter, when articulating their own learning, than when trying to be fair to everyone’s comments.


3) The facilitator asks for “a few comments,” signaling to the group that not everyone needs to speak. But the few you get, are often choice! It’s amazing what participants will say if you ask them to think rather than recite. And those thoughtful insights inform the thinking of the other participants and add to the collective understanding by providing new perspectives. 


4) Even with only a few comments, the facilitator is able to gain a “sense of the room” in terms of their understanding and she often learns something as well. 


* Trish Silber gave me the wonderfully descriptive term, Popcorn

The Power of the Conversation Architect to Address Complex, Adaptive Challenges

One of the most powerful tools a leader has is the power to convene the tough conversations that need to happen in an organization – to focus a group of people on an issue that matters. To convene that kind of meeting, the leader needs to be a conversation architect.

We all know that to have an effective meeting we need to have an agenda, keep things moving, and track action items. That is excellent advice when the purpose of the meeting is to work on everyday, routine issues. But much more is necessary if the group is to deal with what Heifetz* calls “adaptive” challenges.

Adaptive challenges are complex and unpredictable; they have no known answers. To address them organizations must invent their way to solutions. Examples of adaptive challenges are, organizations that have merged and now must create a new and joint culture; hospital systems faced with an interminable nursing shortage; the anticipated retirement of thousands of workers in the government sector; or companies that, in order to survive, must change from selling products to service.

By contrast, technical problems are predictable and solvable. There are methods and tools that the organization has already developed to address them. If, for example, a well is to be dug in a new oil field, there are established procedures; if a special issue of a journal is to be published, there are steps outlined that will put the issue out on schedule and within budget; if a new cell phone is to be developed, there are well defined phases of the development process. Technical problems do not require a fundamental change in methods or tools. More importantly, the people who solve technical problems can function within a known set of assumptions about how work gets done in the organization, as well as what kind of behaviors are needed to make that work happen.

It is a different story with adaptive challenges. Existing assumptions, methods, and tools are useless in the face of complex challenges. They may even get in the way. Dealing with complex challenges requires altered assumptions, different methods, and yet to be invented tools. And beyond that, adaptive challenges often necessitate that employees learn and practice new behaviors. Because they are so difficult, many adaptive challenges remain unresolved for years. In some organizations each successive senior management team repeatedly invents solutions for the challenge – solutions that the rest of the organization is unable to implement.

“By trying to solve adaptive challenges for people, at best you will reconfigure it as a technical problem and create some short-term relief. But the issue will not have gone away. It will surface again.” Heifetz

The power of a leader to address adaptive challenges does not lie in inventing solutions; rather it lies in using leadership authority to convene the conversations. And the task of the leader is to design those conversations in a way that learning and knowledge result – to be a conversation architect.

The conversation architect takes into consideration the following design elements:

1. Framing the conversation: The first leadership task is to recognize the adaptive challenges the organization or unit is facing. That can be difficult, because some adaptive challenges have become so much a part of the organizational culture that leaders and employees alike have resigned themselves to, “that’s just the way it is.” The task is to see with fresh eyes, the issues the organization is facing. 


Framing the conversation also involves posing the question in a way that gets to the heart of the issue, not just a symptom. Without care, the question can limit the scope of possibilities that could be discovered.


2. Identifying who needs to be in the conversation: Those that do the work and those that are impacted by the work have insights and knowledge to bring to bear on the challenge. It may be that customers or stakeholders can also provide a necessary perspective. Our inclination is to think too narrowly about inclusion so it is useful to ask what voices haven’t been heard.


3. High interaction activities: The goal is to design for conversation rather than for presentations or speeches. Our predisposition is to assume we need someone to speak to legitimize the meeting or give direction - a speech from the president to confirm the meeting as important. The conversation architect designs the meeting on the 80-20 rule so that 80% of the meeting time, participants are in conversation with each other. 


4.The small group as the unit of conversation: The small group, (trios, quartets or pairs) is the unit of conversation that is most effective for addressing difficult issues. The group needs to be small enough that members can fully state their ideas and the reasoning behind them, can query each other and probe for understanding of what others have said. If a group exceeds seven, it tends to no longer be in conversation; rather the exchange becomes more like turn taking, with each member declaring their perspective to the others. 


Periodically the small groups need to reconvene as a whole to get a sense, (not report outs) of what is being learned in the small groups.


5. Role of the leader in the conversation: There are two roles the leader plays in the conversation. The first is the convener role. The second is as participant in the conversation. The conventional wisdom is that a leader should withhold his/her own ideas out of concern that it will bias subordinates. That is a useful strategy when the format is such that each subordinate is speaking in turn to the leader. But when the meeting is formatted as small group conversations, the manager’s participation in one small group does not inhibit the forthrightness of those in other small groups. And as important, participating in the small groups gives the manager a voice in the conversation. 


6. Physical space to serve the conversation: The physical space in which we talk has a greater impact on conversation, than most of us credit. The most ideal configuration for a conversation is chairs drawn together without a table to separate those participating. That is why the conversation with a senior is so different when it takes place at the couch and easy chair off to the side, than when the senior is behind his/her desk. Space matters. Round tables elicit more collaboration (King Arthur’s round table) than do square tables which suggest a contest (opponents in a negotiation). The more the space welcomes participants as human beings responsive to their needs for light, nature, food, and beauty, the more they are able to function as human beings in the conversation, rather than as roles in the organization.


7. Connection before content;*** One of the important benefits that small groups engender is that they connect people more effectively than any ice breaker or round robin introduction could possible do. If a group is going to work on difficult issues, they first need to gain a sense of who others are, the skills they bring, the experience they represent, and the hopes they have. A sense of relationship needs to be built before people can address difficult issues together. The leader’s task is to ask questions of the small groups that will provide them the opportunity to make themselves known to others, e.g. talking about experiences they have had relevant to the adaptive challenge; discussing what importance the challenge has for them and their work. 

“Leaders have the power to focus attention and define the conversations for people whan they gather. We might say that leadership is the capacity to name the debate and design gatherings.” Block

Increasingly it is adaptive challenges that organizations face. As the pace of technological, scientific and global change increases, organizations face issues that they have not had to deal with before. The law of requisite variety, which originates in the field of cybernetics, states that the variety in the control system must be equal to or larger than the variety of the perturbations in order to achieve control.

Leaders that find their organizations facing adaptive challenges can no longer rely the method they have used in the past - the senior leadership team meeting to develop the organizational response. However intelligent and experienced seniors are, they lack the requisite variety that can be found in the organization. The task of the leader is to be conversation architect to convene the conversations out of which new thinking can emerge.

*Heifetz, Leadership Without Easy Answers. Harvard University Press. 1994

** Drath, “Leading Together: Complex Challenges Require a New Approach, LIA, Volume 23, Number 1, March/April 2003

*** Block, Community: The Structure of Belonging. Jossey-Bass. 2008

Connection Before Content: Meetings That Are Knowledge-based

Peter Block has a rule of thumb that is very useful if you want a group to apply its collective knowledge to address a difficult issue, Connection before Content. Before a group attempts to use its collective knowledge to deal with serious issues it has to build the relationships that will allow the group to hold an open conversation.

However connection does not mean just going around the room and having everyone say their name and organization – that’s useful, but it doesn’t build connections. We build connections in pairs or trios - groupings that are small enough for each person to gain a sense of who the others are as human beings. For example individuals need to understand, How are these other people like or different from me? Are they open to hearing an idea if it contradicts their own? What shared experiences have we had? Building that level of awareness about others in the group provides the confidence that this is a safe place to say openly what each individual is really thinking about the issues they are facing together. It is a way to create the psychological safety that Edmondson talks about.

When a group has not had the opportunity to build those connections, members so consistently act in ways that reduce the knowledge available to the group. that it is almost as if they were follow a set of unspoken rules. For example:

• Members tend not to share any “unique” knowledge they hold, so group discussions tend to focus only on information that is jointly held. The result is that little that the group does not already know is discussed.
• Members don’t admit implementation mistakes they or their group have made, even when doing so would benefit the whole group. So the group is likely to repeat mistakes that could have been avoided.
• Junior members tend wait until they have the “lay of the land” to speak, leaving those who are in acknowledged positions of power to do most of the talking. That means a diversity of ideas and opinions is lost to the group.
• Members don’t ask for help from the group, even when they recognize that others in the group have the insights or knowledge they need. So everyone learns slower than necessary and a great deal of re-inventing the wheel occurs.

A couple of days ago I sat in on a meeting in an organization that is facing a difficult challenge. A number of their offices are going to move to another city – one several hundred miles away in a different state. The employees that work in those offices will either have to find a new job or move when the job moves. The group that was meeting has been tasked with setting the policies and dealing with the logistics for the move. They hope to make the move go as smoothly as possible, even given that it is going to be traumatic for hundreds of employees.

This was the second of what will probably be months and months of weekly meetings. Twenty-some team members were seated around a long conference table. Those that came late sat in a second tier of chairs placed against the walls. A few people in the room knew others, but most did not.

The leader of the group, not wanting to waste anyone’s time, got the group’s attention and started to work down the agenda. Four or five of the people in the room did most of the talking during the hour and a half meeting, primarily directing their comments to the leader. A few others answered questions when the leader called on them, but otherwise just listened.

The meeting produced little in the way of knowledge exchange or learning. These were well meaning people, wanting to do a good job, but if I were guessing, I’d say this won’t be an effective team. They’ll get their task done, but they won't be able to make use of the knowledge of those in the room.

To build a group that could learn from and with each other under these circumstances, the leader would have had to get the group connected before dealing with such difficult content. For example, they might have spent the first two meetings working in trios rather than the full group, learning about the issues and each other at the same timel. At the first meeting each trio might have identified the key issues the group must address. Perhaps at the second a different set of trios might have talked about the difficult issues they’ve had to face so far in dealing with the move. Such topics would have allowed them to test out their own views and get the reactions of others to them. It might have taken more than two meetings, but having built a level of connection and trust, they might have been ready to talk in ways that would create learning in the group, that is,

• Offer new ideas even when those ideas were not yet fully formed



• Challenge each other’s tacit assumptions which would have allowed them to generate fresh ideas



• Share their own mistakes when it would benefit the group



• Take the risk of saying something they were aware the group would not want to hear 



• Ask each other for help when that help would speed up the process in their own units


That people need to feel some relationship to each other in order to be open is not news to any leader that has had Team Building 101. So sitting in on this meeting raised a question for me, “Why don’t leaders put into practice what they know will help teams and task forces be more effective?”

One answer that comes to mind, is that we’re often hesitant to do anything that smells of relationship building for fear it will be perceived as a waste of time - playing games when we have too much to get done. I share that worry every time I’m asked to help a leader with a new group. As I start to put people in pairs or trios, I wonder if this time they will all rebel and just say they don’t have time for “exercises.” But they never have (yet) and in the subsequent days and weeks I hear from this one and that one, that it was important that they took the time at the beginning - that it made the difference.

There is another reason we might hesitate to use the tools for learning that we know about. I wonder if many of us have been in so many meetings that were a waste of time that we’ve lost faith in meetings as having any value. Maybe we feel there is nothing to be done but to tolerate what we cannot change. The meeting I described earlier would confirm that view. My hope in writing this blog is to encourage leaders to renew their faith in the power of conversation in groups and more over to do the simple things that make those conversations more learningful like Connection before Content.

A Rant on “Are There Any Questions?”

Every good speaker knows that at the end of a presentation, you have to leave time for questions. Hogwash! Leaving time for questions is the worse learning process we could have invented. We’ve all been brainwashed into the pseudo learning theory that asking for questions at the end of a presentation makes it a better learning experience for the audience. Wrong!

You know what typically happens; you’ve seen it a hundred times:

The speaker gives his talk, of course going on longer than he was supposed to, leaving a slim five minutes for Q&A. But being thoroughly conditioned he asks, “Are there any questions?” An uncomfortable silence ensues. The speaker looks around anxiously, standing it as long as he can - usually about 10 seconds - then starts to make an embarrassed exit comment. Just then a member of the audience takes pity on him. The audience member, not being able to conjure up a real question within the short 10 seconds, asks an inconsequential one. Nevertheless, everyone breathes a sigh of relief because the speaker is saved from the worst of embarrassments –that there was so little interest in what he had to say that no one even had any questions!! He gratefully elaborates on the same points he has already made twice, going on as long as he can so there won’t be any more uncomfortable silences. By the time he stops someone in the audience has actually had time to come up with a reasonably pertinent question, but alas the conference timekeeper says, “Sorry I’m afraid we’re all out of time for questions. The next speaker is …..” 


“So what’s wrong with that”, you ask with considerable indignation, “surely you’re not suggesting that presenters should NOT leave time for the audience to ask questions?”

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying – because having a handful of people out of a large audience ask 2 or 3 questions does little or nothing to enhance the learning experience of the audience. In fact the whole charade is about as anti-learning as you could get. Take a hard look at it:

• For starters look at the meaning of that ubiquitous phase, “Are their any questions?” The speaker is not asking for comments, different views on the topic, or reactions, any of which might produce some learning. No, the speaker in effect is asking, “What did I say that you did not understand or that you would like me to elaborate on because it was unclear?” That puts the audience in a bit of a pickle. If they have understood, maybe even agreed with the speaker, what are they going to ask? 

• On the other hand, if someone in the audience did disagree with the speaker, they will now have to cleverly disguise their disagreement in a question. This is accomplished by starting with a lengthy statement of one’s own views then tagging on a non-question like, “So, I’m wondering if you’ve given that possibility any thought?” Of course the audience knows what is happening and is reasonably tolerant of this ruse – but only up to a point. If the phony question asker goes on too long with his introductory statement, he will suffer glares and frowns from the rest of the audience who after all came to hear the speaker – not some nobody in the audience. It’s a charade and the whole audience is in on the game. 

• The “Are their any Questions” question loudly proclaims, “The only person in the room that has useful ideas on this topic is the speaker!” We even listen to speakers in rooms where we can look only in one direction, at the speaker in the front of the room – a clear message about who in the room is expected to have anything important to say. Never mind the reality that many audience members have in-depth experiences and deep knowledge that, could they be heard, might even enrich the understanding of the speaker. Surely, in this age of Wikis and Del.ici.ous, we are years beyond the idea that a single expert has “answers.” The lone expert in the front of the room, telling a naive audience what they do not know, is out of sync with our more sophisticated understanding of how knowledge is created and shared. 

• And then there is the notion that we learn by listening; the research is very clear that listening, no matter how long the speaker goes on, is not enough to learn. Rather we learn when we take the time to connect new information to the store of knowledge that is already in our heads and making those connections takes time. Without processing time, what has been heard goes in one ear and out the other. We forget what was said almost as soon as we hear it. 

• Moreover, as listeners, we require a way to process what we are hearing. There are lots of ways of doing that, we can talk to someone about it, write out the logic of it, draw a map, make a chart – but all of them require the active involvement of the listener– not just passive listening. 


Okay, so we’ve got it all wrong: all those endless speeches punctuated by a few audience questions are a poor excuse for learning. Got it! What do we do about it?

Obvious, have the audience talk (or write or draw or chart). Now clearly there is not time for every member of the audience to stand up and express his or her thinking on the speaker’s topic. But there is a much better way for audience members to talk at a presentation. Talk to each other!

There are lots of ways to make that happen. An easy way is, after talking for 15 or 20 minutes the speaker asks the audience a question and then puts them in small groups or pairs so they can talk to each other about what they have just heard. The more talking they do the more learning they do. Then the speaker makes a few more comments and the small groups talk about the second question.

But you say, “That takes time away from the speaker.” Yes, it does. I know you paid a lot for the speaker to come and you want to get your money’s worth. But remember, the goal is for audience members to go away with some new ideas – and that won’t happen unless they take the time to build their own connections. Think about it this way; the speaker is not there to provide answers, rather to stimulate the thinking of the participants – and that doesn’t take up the whole hour.

So if you change your habits and give the audience the time to process what you have said, then will they remember your golden words? Probably not, but they will certainly remember what they said, and after all, that is what they learned!