Story of Otto Scharmer about the levels of conversation

< Levels of conversation

So when you go around, and you start observing conversations, team meetings, how people talk, the first thing that really strikes you is, they all tend to talk the same. They all kind of operate in the same conversational mode. For example, one team, everyone is trying to be really polite to each other, to please the boss. In another organization, you have another team meeting. And there, maybe, everyone is engaging with each other in a fierce debate. And then there is a third kind of team that you see in another organization. And in that meeting, everyone is trying to engage with each other in a dialogic reflective, more reflective conversation mode. But what you see is, usually, all members in a team talk the same. All members in a meeting talk the same. It's not like one person is being polite, the next person is debating, the third person is dialoguing, no. We have these patterns. We enact our conversational actions out of something that happens between us. And that something, that's what I refer to as field. It's a pattern of interaction. And do we see these field patterns shifting very often? No. Does it happen? Yes. It can happen. If it does happen, we usually all notice it. And it usually affects everyone in the team, to shift from one mode of operating to another one. So that's my first observation, which is conversation happens in fields. And the second observation is that there's only a very finite number of generic fields. Yes, it's true, every conversation is different. But when you really listen to the deeper, generic field patterns, there is only a very limited number of them. In fact, I believe I have only seen four of them.

Downloading
The first field of conversation is called downloading, or talking nice. What it really means is that we are speaking from what they, or what others, want to hear. So we engage in polite phrases, polite conversation and routines. And we are basically conforming with what other people want us to say. We are not necessarily articulating what we really think. But we fit in, we conform with what others want us to say. And that style of conversation is what, in schools, we call learning. So we learn to articulate what teachers want us to bring across. Or, in organizations, we call good communication, giving positive feedback, articulating what the bosses want to hear. And probably none of us, in this global community of changemakers that comes together here, in this U.Lab, would be in this place if we couldn't at least, to some degree, deliver on this field of conversation. So if it serves us, as individuals, what's the big problem with it? Well, the problem is that from an organizational learning point of view, it is absolutely dysfunctional. Because it disables us as a team to talk about the real issues that we face as a team, as an organization, as a community.

Debate
And that actually brings us to the second field of conversation. Something that we call debate, or talking tough. And something that, essentially, is based on speaking from what I think, rather than from what they want me to say. So different behavioral aspects here are that people bring in their own point of view. So the entry ticket to a conversation is not that I'm conforming with my boss, and then I'm saying that. That's level one. Level two is-- my entry ticket is that I have a different point of view. Something that differs from what the person before me, or all speakers before me articulated and brought into the conversation. That is what gives me legitimacy. To articulate the point of view that I want to bring in. While it's a great thing to have-- so the great progress, you could say, with this style of conversation is that we bring all the different viewpoints that exist in a team, in a social situation, in a community, that we bring them onto the table. That being said, the limitation of this style of conversation is that people cannot get beyond their point of view. If you imagine the viewpoint is like a jacket. So in this debate style of conversation, the way I feel is, I am my jacket. If you are going to attack or to criticize my viewpoint, you're criticizing me. You're attacking me. And that's exactly how I'm going to respond to you, which is, I will be defensive. I will defend my viewpoint. And I will argue why you are wrong, and why my perspective is the better one.

Reflective dialogue
Which leads us to the third level of conversation-- reflective dialogue. A dialogue or reflective inquiry. And the essence of this third field of conversation is that I am beginning to speak from seeing myself as part of the whole. Remember the astronaut movie that we showed last week? Going out for the moon, for the stars, and then turning around the camera and beginning to see Planet Earth and planet self. This kind of reflective turn, bending the beam of observation, and becoming aware that I am part of the larger system. The system is not just something out there. I am part of the system. And I'm part of co-creating the system. Co-enacting the system. That's this move. So when we talk about dialogue and reflective inquiry, it is the capacity of the system to see itself. That's the turning around of the camera. And that results in speaking from seeing myself as part of the whole. That's exactly what we mean with that. So what behavioral pattern do you see in a conversation. Something very simple-- this. That you see the conversational behavior moving from defensive routines, from defending my viewpoint, to inquiring into the viewpoints of others. So what does that mean? It means people ask real questions of each other. So in a debate style of conversation. If you differ from my viewpoint, I'm fiercely going to defend my viewpoint, and tell you why I am right, and you are not. While in a dialogue, you and I still have the same difference in viewpoints. That's not different. But what is different is, that in a level two conversation, I try to convince you why you are wrong. I try to defend my point of view against you. In a level three conversation, a reflective dialogue, I'm beginning to ask genuine questions. What makes you think differently? Why is it? So what are the experiences, what are the foundations based on which you come up with a viewpoint that's so different, or slightly different to my own conclusions. So that criteria, whether or not people ask genuine questions of each other, or questions of each other at all. Not rhetorical questions, but real questions. That's a very good indicator whether you are operating on level three, reflective dialogue, or on level two, which is a debate style of conversation. So let me sum up moving from level two to level three. Moving from debate to dialogue means moving from I am my jacket to I have a jacket. And if I have a jacket, it means I can take it off. And I can hang it some place. And I can suspend my assumptions, the assumptions of my viewpoint. And I can look at it from outside, because I have a point of view. It's not I am my viewpoint. And then, I have the freedom to move around, and look at the situation that we are facing from another stakeholder's perspective. And then, to move on, and again, to move around the problem, and look from all the different angles of the other stakeholders. And appreciate how it looks different from their viewpoint, and from their experience. And then in the end, I come back. And I return to my own perspective, to my own jacket. But now, my decisions are informed by the broadening and deepening of the perspectives. And by the awareness of the impact that my decisions have on the experience of all the other stakeholders. In my view, 50% of change management is just about that shift. That shift from I am my jacket to I have a jacket. The shift from debate to dialogue. And it matters a lot, because it's a shift of one type of conversation where, when we face problems, I blame the others around me-- other organizations, other stakeholders, other departments-- to another way of viewing it, where I begin to see the system as a constellation of variables that includes myself. I am part of the system. And I see how I contribute to both the problems that we face today, but also, to the solutions that we could create tomorrow. And that shift essentially is a shift of mindset that is at the heart of all change management and culture change in bigger systems today.

Collective creativity
So the fourth field of conversation is called collective creativity. It's based on speaking from what is moving through. And it's often connected to a moment of transformative stillness, presencing, where we begin to sense and actualize emerging future possibilities. And where, as a group, we move into a state of flow, into a state of co-creative flow, where we no longer can say is it your idea, or is it my idea, and where, collectively, through our engaging with each other, something new is being born that wasn't there before. And that's why this notion of co-creating and shifting our sense of who we really are, connecting more with our deeper sources of inspiration, of energy, and of self, is a defining feature here. And later on in the lab, we're going to here more examples of that. It may sound a little abstract at this point, which is fine, but it will become more apparent and more clear the deeper we go on this journey here together.

Criteria
How can we know whether we have been operating on level one, two three, or four? Here is a distinction, or some criteria, that you could use when you want to monitor on which level conversation you're really operating. So when you come out of a conversation, and everything that you expected to see actually did happen, that's a good indicator that you have been downloading, that you have been part of a conversation where nothing new really happened. So everything that did happen was fitting into your old frameworks-- your old expectations. When you come out of conversation that resulted in some new aspects, some new data points, some new viewpoints that you weren't aware of before, that is challenging some of your own assumptions, that's a good indicator for having been in a good debate, in a good conversation that is exposing you to some new realities outside there that you weren't aware of, and that are challenging some of your own assumptions. So that's level two. When you come out of a conversation that not only is exposing you to new data that is challenging your assumptions, but that really allows you to see reality through another perspective, through another pair of eyes, and to begin to see yourself through the eyes of another, through the eyes through the experience of another stakeholder, that's a good indicator for level three. So level three is you come out of a conversation with a new perspective, not just come out with new data points. And then lastly, how would you know whether or not you have been part of a level four conversation? There are a couple of key indicators. One is energy. If your energy is way up, your level of inspiration is much higher, and also a level four conversation means that's something that wasn't quite there yet before is in the process of being born. So it could be a breakthrough idea. It has to do with profound innovation, which, however, often feels like a birthing process. So something is being born or being created as a result of that. That's the third criteria. And the fourth one is that I leave-- and that's maybe the main criteria-- so here is the main criteria, that if you leave that conversation, and you're still the same person that entered the conversation one or two or three hours before, then you have not been part of a level four conversation. Level four conversation is when the person that leaves the conversation is someone different to the other person that entered the conversation. And what I mean with that is that you are different in terms of you are more your real self. You're more closely connected to who you really are and who you are becoming, who you could become tomorrow. So you are more closely connected to your real journey and to your emerging self, rather than to the person that entered the conversation that was more formed or informed by your journey of the past. So those are four criteria that apply to this fourth level of conversation. And later this week, we will introduce you to an assessment tool that actually gives you the possibility to use these criteria and apply them onto your own self-monitoring. So that you self-assess-- OK, when was it today when I actually operated on level three or four? And what percentage of my time am I actually spending on level one, on level two, on level three, on level four-type of conversation? And we have found that here at MIT in the U.Lab, students that use this type of tool, this type of self-assessment, on a daily level have significantly improved their capacity to operate on the entire spectrum of conversational fields, rather than being stuck in one or two levels. High-performing teams are not teams that are only operating on one level. High-performing teams are teams that can move across the entire spectrums of fields of conversation, while low-performing teams are stuck on one or two levels. So what we try to do is to increase your capacity to really operate across the entire spectrum as needed. And now, we will look at some more real-world examples. So we want to go next door to our friend Dayna Cunningham, who heads the MIT Community Innovators Lab, and listen to some of her stories, how she is putting some of these concepts into practice into her own work and in the context of her own life.