Collaborative Conversation Navigator

Problem Solving & Decision MakingEssay3 min read

A tool to enhance the group decision-making process through dialogue.

Adapted from David Bohm's dialogue practice (Dialogue: A Proposal, with Donald Factor and Peter Garrett, 1991; On Dialogue, 1996), as carried into management by Peter Senge (The Fifth Discipline, 1990) and William Isaacs (Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together, 1999), with the paraphrase-and-check rule of Carl Rogers (1952).

What it is for

The purpose of the Collaborative Conversation Navigator is to enhance the group decision-making process through dialogue: a form of communication that prioritizes mutual understanding over persuasion or agreement. This tool is aimed at merging diverse viewpoints to discover overarching insights that may not be evident through conventional discussion methods.

The thinking tool is employed by first ensuring that all members are on the same page regarding the intention behind the dialogue: to learn from each other and synthesize collective wisdom. It involves selecting individuals willing to put aside their biases and listen genuinely to others' ideas. This kind of environment allows a group to develop a shared understanding that surpasses individual perspectives.

Why use it

Dialogue is a way of talking where the goal isn't to win or agree, but to understand each other better. It combines different ideas to find a higher truth.

How to use it

The first goal is to make sure everyone feels free to speak their mind. This happens when people are ready to put aside their own strong opinions and are open to being influenced by what others say. When everyone is open in this way, the group can reach a new level of shared understanding.

The Collaborative Conversation Navigator consists of a series of actions.

Ten rules for dialogue in a meeting

Each rule is an action, the name of its guideline, and the guideline itself. Tick the rules the group agrees to before the meeting starts, then copy them to share.

1 rule picked0 rules picked

CopiedCould not copy

Actions and guidelines

  1. If the conversation during the meeting starts to veer away from constructive dialogue, it's important to pause and recalibrate. This might occur if individuals start to debate, if the discussion becomes unfocused, or if the environment becomes less collaborative. When this happens, halt the meeting and remind participants of the dialogue's purpose: to understand and explore ideas together, not to argue or convince.
  2. In a problem-solving context, active listening is essential. It requires participants not just to hear but to understand and consider the viewpoints of others. When someone speaks, others should listen attentively and then paraphrase what they've heard to ensure comprehension. If there's any confusion, they should ask the speaker to clarify. This practice ensures that all participants feel heard and that their ideas are accurately represented in the collective understanding.
  3. To create a productive problem-solving environment, encourage participants to contribute their views without fear of criticism. This approach helps to reduce the natural tendency to defend one's ego and promotes a more open exchange of diverse perspectives. It's crucial to create an atmosphere where it's safe to share even unconventional ideas.
  4. Encourage transparency by asking participants to share their personal motivations or "hidden agendas." In a problem-solving setting, understanding these underlying factors can prevent misunderstandings and align the group toward a common goal.
  5. Remind participants that the objective is to explore and understand each other's thoughts, not to judge or reach immediate conclusions. This understanding is vital for collaborative problem-solving, where premature judgments can shut down innovative solutions.
  6. In dialogue, it's important that participants feel comfortable sharing their beliefs. True dialogue and understanding start when individuals can express their opinions freely, without fear of hostility or judgment. This openness is a cornerstone for effective problem-solving, as it allows the group to address all aspects of an issue.
  7. Integrate moments of silence into the dialogue to give participants time to reflect on what has been discussed. This practice helps to deepen understanding and fosters a collective meaning. When solving complex problems, taking time to reflect can often lead to breakthroughs and aha moments.
  8. Be aware that strong emotional reactions usually indicate deeply held beliefs. Use these moments as opportunities for participants to reflect on their responses and consider how their personal views relate to what has been shared. Such awareness can prevent conflict and guide the group toward more empathetic and holistic problem-solving.
  9. Encourage participants to speak openly about their experiences without being defensive. In problem-solving, this openness can lead to discovering new insights and solutions that might otherwise be overlooked if participants are too focused on defending their own positions.
  10. Instead of contesting different viewpoints, acknowledge them as valid perspectives. Steering clear of immediate conclusions allows for a richer exploration of the problem at hand. Remember that understanding differing viewpoints can lead to a more comprehensive grasp of the issue and, consequently, more effective solutions.

Where it fits

No step of the process names this tool. It sits beside the decision tools of Selecting the Right Decision Tools, the second step of the Evaluate phase, as the way a group talks while it weighs its options. That is a departure from the dialogue tradition it draws on: Bohm kept dialogue apart from decisions, and this tool runs it inside a decision meeting.

Related tools

Where the Conversation Convergence Process clears a misunderstanding between two people and the Critical Consensus Constructor takes a group to a decision, this tool sets how a team talks, with shared understanding as its only product. The Constructive Contrarian Guide takes the opposite posture: one person appointed to challenge.