Brad Rourke

Does Dialogue Always Require Trained Conversation Leaders?

The White House’s Office Of Science And Technology Policy last week invited comments on a number of blog posts that summarized citizen recommendations to enhance participation and transparency. (This is part of the administration’s “Open Government Initiative.”)

One blog post was on “Enhancing Citizen Participation In Decision Making.”

People shared a lot of good ideas. I wish I could link directly to a particular comment, because my friend Peter Levine added what I thought was the most important intervention.

Peter suggests four principles to keep in mind about any mechanism for face-to-face public participation:

1. Some method to ensure reasonable levels of representativeness.

2. A neutral and responsible presentation of the issues.

3. A carefully through-out process that promotes learning and collaboration. That almost always requires trained moderators.

4. Some protection against deliberate manipulation by interest groups. In a completely open online discussion, it’s easy to email a huge number of supporters and ask them all to post comments. In a conventional public hearing, usually the main speakers represent specific interests. We need to draw a true cross section of people for an open-minded discussion. Random selection is one way to avoid manipulation, but there are other ways as well–always involving careful recruitment.

Any of these ideas is worth more exploration, but I am interested in the third.

Dialogue almost always requires trained moderators. Intuitively we know this is true. Dialogue, when it goes well, pushes us to examine our own assumptions about what motivates other people. When was the last time you did that, unprovoked? I didn’t think so.

Flipchart in the garden by Flickr user Sjors Provoost
"Flipchart in the garden" by Flickr user Sjors Provoost

In dialogue initiatives that I have been a part of, we often ask participants a variety of questions at the end, including whether people changed their mind about anything or whether they see others who disagree with them differently than before. Very few people admit to having their minds changed — but people often report that they see others in a different light.

That kind of mindset change cannot be self-generated but requires someone to push it.

Even more, when I look at different dialogue initiatives, and at the different group conversations that take place within them, I’ve found that one of the key leverage points is the quality of the leader. It is not rocket science to lead a dialogue on public issues, but it is a skill that takes a bit of mindfulness.

What makes a good dialogue leader? It’s not the same thing as being a “neutral facilitator” because it takes a little more moxie. I can think of five key traits:

  • Ability to think on your feet
  • Genuine interest in what other people have to say
  • Ability to track the conversation actively and bring in things that people said previously
  • Ability to set expert knowledge aside
  • Willingness to lead, humility to set ego aside

Lots of my readers are active in the public dialogue field. What are your key conversation leader traits?

Posted

in

by

Brad Rourke

Tags:

Comments

4 responses to “Does Dialogue Always Require Trained Conversation Leaders?”

  1. bradrourke

    Thanks for the question, Mike. Looks like fodder for a new blog post. . . .

  2. Mike Wood

    Brad, I liked this post a lot. David makes a good point, that there are exceptions to this rule, and I too have experienced them in my own comings and goings in community life. I think from an organizational perspective though, real dialogue or conversation-based engagement skills are too important to leave up to chance.

    I don’t know if it has to be an outisde person (you’re not necessarily saying that, I realize). I think back to The Harwood Institute’s Reconnecting Communities and Schools Work, where real people in real communities were trained to lead conversations. It wasn’t super extensive training but enough to get the ball rolling. And people felt comfortable talking to their neighbors as opposed to “facilitators.” I think of facilitators as having process but no content. I agree with you in that a conversation-based engagement leader actually has to bring his or her own experiences as a citizen into the space to help move the conversation. They have to have an understanding of how people talk, how to peel back the layers of that talk, how to make connections, etc.

    Here’s my question back to you: How in the world can we get more people in our organizations to have those skills? What are the trainings, tools, etc. that can create those skills? If the answer is that you’re either born with it or you’re not, I think we’re in real trouble!

  3. David Moore

    I think it isn’t so much that it needs a trained person – but it needs the role. In other words, one or sometimes more people in a conversation need to play the role of leading the conversation.

    Certainly for conversations that are part of an initiative on a timeline with a purpose, it is likely that identified and skilled individuals will need to play this role to ensure a productive dialogue.

    But I also believe dialogue does occur naturally among people at times without a trained leader or conversation guide. I can think of cases where I have been part of social conversations that turn into dialogue because different people take on the role of pushing, summarizing, contrasting, challenging and supporting each other in moving ideas ahead.

  4. Allison Addicott

    In the faith community environment, leading dialogues is a HUGE issue. Further, it is a skill. Oned needs not only to be able to synthesize comments on-the fly, but one’s ability to show deep understanding to the person speaking is required in that faith environment (i.e. I am being watched to see that I hear and care – this model is a two-way street – almost dating…) The purpose of dialogues can be varied – some will be to come to consensus around an issue, some will be to educate (QandA format), some will be challenging (as in many New Member’s Orientation conversations). In such instances, one may be called to lead a few weeks’ worth of education, moderation, and guidance to a group of people who do not know each other but are considering becoming part of a larger community that will be both public and very personal.

    This is where your understanding of “moxie” comes in. Almost without exception, such gatherings will include at least one person, who when given the opportunity to speak, will drown out all others. This is the person who is asked to observe a two minute window and has just begun to roll at 10 minutes.

    It does take skill as a leader and moderator to enable all to feel heard, to nurture insights about the motivation and assumptions that underscore comments, and to be able to protect the dialogue from those who would rather carelessly over-indulge personal use of the group time-allotment.

    Thus, the one key skill I would point out is the ability to carefully listen and then summarize and repeat back to those who cannot self-moderate time use, then remind that all need to be heard. Some leaders start leading without really understanding that element of controlling the conversation – which results often in a kind of resentment on the part of others who have shared appropriately.

    I end here!

Leave a comment