During my second call with my dialogue coach, we examined some of my conclusions after exercising David Kantor’s four-player conversation model. Kantor suggests actions a person may take during a conversation: movers initiate ideas and transition the conversation; opposers challenge ideas and the conversation; followers complete ideas and support the conversation; bystanders provide perspective on the ideas and conversation. We also considered the implications of creating a “container” for generative dialogue, and whether that container is considered negative or positive. Continue reading →

Dialogue leaders work to keep harmony and productivity within a group discussion, thereby supporting the emergence of generative actions. David Kantor’s four-player conversation model suggests actions a person may take during a conversation: movers initiate ideas and transition the conversation; opposers challenge ideas and the conversation; followers complete ideas and support the conversation; bystanders provide perspective on the ideas and conversation. I recently took part in conversations to consciously explore these roles. Afterward, I theorized that movers and opposers are the actors best suited to set direction. The mover is like a skipper charting new waters, while the opposer drops anchors to explore the current waters. Bystanders and followers mostly provide crew support. I developed two theories related to Web-based, threaded dialogue. First, when a compelling perspective is voiced in online conversations, it causes a pause that opens a door for actors to change roles. Second, followers are less relevant online, where conversations include adequate time to respond and an archive to keep thoughts clear. Continue reading →

During my first dialogue with my coach, we explored some of the key processes of coaching: listening, mirroring, summarizing, questioning and catalyzing. Our conversation mostly focused on the first two, listening and mirroring. The former requires a coach to help people see their situation and themselves better. The latter involves inviting them into a period of reflection, diving deeper into the information they’ve shared.

When it comes to public statements, I shared that I’m more of a writer than a talker. As someone who’s successfully managed international public affairs programs, and recently completed a state-level public information officer course, I’m confident in suggesting that I’m more comfortable with carefully researching and writing talking points than speaking them. When making statements in public forums, I prefer a shoot-from-the-hip approach. But I shared a contradiction in my conclusion with my coach. On one hand, I prefer deliberate dialogue; on the other, I’m comfortable with rambling without constraints. My coach weakened my claim of a conflict by suggesting I’m simply most relaxed with developing ideas, relating and connecting. Continue reading →